Sitting of 28 November 1991

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

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
  London Underground (Safety Measures) Act 1991

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Monday 2 December at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of corporation tax for small companies; and what it was 12 years ago.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): The small companies rate of corporation tax is 25 per cent. compared with 42 per cent. at the time of the 1979 general election.
    Mr. Gill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's significant progress in reducing corporate tax rates. However, will he assure the House that the importance of retained profits is truly understood by his Department, especially in relation to unquoted companies where the profits ploughed back by those companies are often the only source of capital? If that seedcorn is confiscated, it inevitably drives companies into the hands of their bankers, which gives rise to many of the problems that small businesses are currently experiencing.
    Mr. Maude: I take my hon. Friend's question as an expression of support for our policy of increasing the amount of profit that is left with companies for them to retain or distribute as they think proper. That is the best way of providing a good environment in which businesses can flourish. That is the judgment not just of the Government, but of those hard-hearted characters who decide where mobile investment projects should go ill the EC. The majority of Japanese mobile investment projects and many of the American projects are coming to Britain in preference to anywhere else because Britain has the best environment in which to do business.
    Mr. Battle: Is not the uniform business rate imposed by the Government hammering small businesses which cannot pay it? Is not that an extra tax that the Government have imposed on business?
    Mr. Maude: Britain is full of small business people who are breathing a sigh of relief that their business rate is limited to an increase in the retail prices index rather than the 60 or 70 per cent. annual increases that some irresponsible Labour-controlled councils were imposing and which had the sole effect of driving businesses out of many of our major inner-city centres.
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend will realise that his statement on corporation tax for small companies needs slight adjustment and I am sure that he is considering a major adjustment on capital gains, which I understand is one of the taxes where the cost of collection exceeds the revenue. Will he consider those matters before the next budget?
    Mr. Maude: I treat my hon. Friend's question as an early Budget representation, which I have noted and will consider carefully.

    Bank of Credit and Commerce International
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had any further discussions concerning the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International; and if he will make a statement.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Both I and my officials have had a number of such discussions with a variety of people. On 6 November I saw a delegation of small business men who had been customers of BCCI, and yesterday I saw representatives of the BCCI depositors protection association.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the proposals put forward by the provisional liquidator and the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi as a first step towards a settlement of the problem? Will he confirm that the Government support a further adjournment of the liquidation period on Monday to allow the negotiations to be completed? Does he agree that the liquidators and other representatives should study every proposal and option in order to secure the best possible deal for depositors, creditors and former members of staff?
    Mr. Maples: Obviously, the Government share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at the fact that the liquidator may well be working out an arrangement with the main shareholders that would mean BCCI's creditors possibly getting a considerably greater return on what they are owed than was previously thought possible. Those negotiations are a matter for the liquidator and shareholders, and the question of what the court should do is a matter for the court and the parties before it, not the Government.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that we are long past the stage of apportioning blame? People may have been misled, but they may not have been. Should not we now bend our efforts to supporting the proposal that the Minister mentioned and to finding some way of compensating those who have lost dearly?
    Mr. Maples: The first line of compensation is the deposit protection scheme, which needs a liquidation order

    1053
    to come into effect. Whether or not that will happen on 2 December remains to be seen. The Government will welcome any arrangement that the liquidator and the principal shareholders can make that would result in BCCI's depositors getting a considerably greater return on their investment than was previously thought possible.
    Mr. Boateng: Does the Minister share the view of Sir Leon Brittan and the European Commission that there should be a Europeanwide deposit protection scheme—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Such is the hostility of Conservative Members to Europe that it is quite mind-boggling. Does the Minister also share Sir Leon's view that such a scheme should include non-sterling deposits? In the aftermath of the Bingham inquiry, will he ensure that there is a full review of the second banking directive?
    Mr. Maples: Clearly, the Government will take appropriate action on any recommendations that result from the Bingham inquiry. Early drafts of a possible EC directive on a Europeanwide deposit protection scheme are being discussed. We think that the basis should be home country protection and that one should not be liable to pay deposits in other people's currencies.

    Inflation
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of retail price inflation in the United Kingdom; and what is the average within the European Community.
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest annual rate of inflation.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): Headline retail prices index inflation in the United Kingdom was 3·7 per cent. in the year to October—the lowest for three and a half years. The latest available average for the European Community is 4·6 per cent. in the year to September.
    Mr. Greenway: Are not those figures very encouraging? Does not the fact that our inflation rate is lower than the European Community average offer a real opportunity to British industry to improve its competitiveness? Does my right hon. Friend by any chance recollect the average inflation rate under the last Labour Government? What does he think about that?
    Mr. Lamont: Just by chance, I do remember it. The average inflation rate under the last Labour Government was no less than the astonishing figure of 15½ per cent. What is so interesting is that despite that disastrous performance, Labour's policies have hardly altered—and they would have the same effect again.
    Sir Michael Neubert: While the reduction in price rises is very welcome—taking us back to where we were three and a half years ago—does my right hon. Friend recognise the irony that, as a result, current interest rates—the price of money—are, in real terms, at an all-time high? Can he defy what may appear to be a paradox by both easing the burden of excessive interest rates and pressing on relentlessly until inflation is completely eradicated from the economy?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend asks me to do several things that might not be so easy to do at once. Our first priority must be to maintain the pound's position within the exchange rate mechanism. That is our policy for interest rates. At the same time, we have been able to achieve a dramatic reduction in inflation—which, because it is better than the European Community average, means that there are better prospects for exporting firms and for the jobs in them. There is no way that we can sustain high employment unless we are competitive in inflation levels.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Chancellor worried that we are not sustaining high employment? Is he worried that it has taken such a deep and prolonged recession to reduce inflation to its current level? Does he think that he is doing a good job in alerting the country to the rapid rate of convergence at which he is aiming in the exchange rate mechanism and the possible move towards European monetary union?
    Mr. Lamont: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's last point. If I understood him correctly, he seemed to be saying that our inflation rate was converging too quickly, and that that was imposing costs on the economy. That is an extraordinary contrast with the uncritical support for monetary union expressed by his right hon. and hon. Friends, who want to leap in with no conditions and to throw away the conditions that we have negotiated—[Laughter.] Labour Members scoff, but that is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition said in the debate the other day.
    Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the dramatic reduction in the inflation rate. Is he aware that in setting standard spending assessments for prudent local authorities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment expects them to achieve an even greater reduction in costs and prices? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor consider consulting the Secretary of State to establish whether the SSAs for prudent authorities, which demand such remarkable reductions in costs and prices, are really justified?
    Mr. Lamont: That is an extremely ingenious question. I know that my right hon. Friend has already made those points to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We believe, however, that the settlement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House the other day is realistic and generous and that all responsible local authorities should be able to cope with it.
    Mr. James Lamond: The reduction in inflation is to be welcomed; it will greatly assist in increasing the number of job opportunities. However, does not every reduction in the inflation rate leave the real interest rate a little higher? Surely the Chancellor now has the opportunity to announce a further cut in interest rates. That would help every company in the country, including the small companies that were the subject of an earlier question.
    Mr. Lamont: As I have already said, our first priority will be to maintain the external value of the currency—that is, to maintain its position in the exchange rate mechanism. I dread to think where the pound would have been in the past few days if I had followed the advice of Opposition Members.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Chancellor will probably recall that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, told the House on 15 February 1990 that the retail prices index was an inaccurate measure of the real rate of inflation. He reiterated that point in June and again in July.
    Is not it the case that the present underlying rate of inflation in the United Kingdom is 5·5 per cent. if mortgage interest rates are excluded, and 7·3 per cent. if both mortgage interest rates and poll tax are excluded? Is it not also the case that the underlying rate was 5·9 per cent. when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) became Chancellor, and that it is now 7·3 per cent? A little more humility would not go amiss.
    Mr. Lamont: I touched on those points yesterday when I appeared before the Treasury Select Committee. Whether we take the retail prices index minus mortgage interest payments or producer prices, the rate of inflation has declined sharply in the past year and I suspect that the underlying measures of inflation will continue to decline in the next year—[Interruption.] I can tell the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who is interrupting from a sedentary position, that the underlying rate of inflation compares extremely well with the position under the Labour Government of which he was a member.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual rate of investment in manufacturing industry (a) from 1974 to 1979 and (b) since 1979.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): Manufacturing investment, narrowly defined, averaged £9·8 billion a year between 1974 and 1979 and £9·8 billion a year between 1979 and 1990 at constant 1985 prices. Total capital investment in plant and machinery averaged £17·7 billion between 1974 and 1979 and £24·3 billion a year between 1979 and 1990, also at constant 1985 prices.
    Mr. McKay: The Minister has chosen his statistics carefully. Has not he forgotten to mention that between 1979 and 1981 investment fell sharply and that it was lower in the third quarter of 1991 than in any other quarter—12 per cent. of the 1979 level? With all the income from oil and from selling off the family silver, is not it a disgrace that manufacturing investment is now lower than in 1979? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes in that vital sector of our economy, why does not he take measures to increase investment?
    Mr. Mellor: If one takes the narrow definition of manufacturing investment, which excludes a range of investment that is made by manufacturing companies in services that no longer count as manufacturing investment but which they used to do in-house, the average for the past six years was£10·9 billion—much higher than under the previous Labour Government. I do not know what the Labour party is so proud of, because under the previous Labour Government manufacturing output fell by 2½ per cent. whereas between 1981 and 1991 it increased by 25 per cent.
    Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in the 1980s manufacturing output rose by 31 per cent? Irrespective of what the Labour party says
    1056
    about what happened before 1979, if he visited various parts of Yorkshire he would see massive investment in manufacturing, including £1 million in wool textiles.
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the international comparisons are even more telling. In the 1970s—for much of which there was a Labour Government—the United Kingdom was the only Group of Seven country where average year-on-year manufacturing output fell. In the 1980s, we ran joint third among the Group of Seven, which was a considerable improvement
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the Chief Secretary aware that today 900 of our fellow citizens in Derby, Crewe and York will lose their jobs in the manufacturing sector? Is he further aware that since 1979, 2 million of our fellow citizens have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector? Is it the Government's policy to arrest the accelerating decline in manufacturing—both in investment and employment—and, if so, when they will do it and how?
    Mr. Mellor: There is evidence that the decline in manufacturing has been arrested, and I shall give the hon. Gentleman that evidence. It seems clear that in 1991, as in 1990 and 1989 and after decades of decline, Britain's portion of world trade in manufacturing exports will increase. That is a significant achievement, of which the hon. Gentleman should be aware. Despite the Labour party's smears about what has been happening recently, manufacturing exports are up this year, notwithstanding the recession.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: The latest Confederation of British Industry economic forecast shows a decline in manufacturing investment in 1991 of almost 20 per cent. and a further decline of 4·4 per cent. in 1992. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with that performance?
    Mr. Mellor: What is absolutely clear is that——
    Mr. John Smith: Answer the question.
    Mr. Mellor: I am about to do so. It is not an answer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will like.
    The only basis on which criticism can be made of the inevitable decline in investment during the recession is if high praise is lavished on the Government for the three years in the last 1980s when investment touched peaks. Even with the decline in business investment in this recession, it is about 40 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. That is the proof of our achievement in the 1980s, to which we can return.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does not business investment, of which manufacturing investment is a part, remain extremely high? Is not it higher today than throughout the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s?
    Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am only too happy to discuss manufacturing, as it is an important sector of the economy. However, it is 20 per cent. of the economy and I never understand why the Labour party is not interested in the other 80 per cent. It appears that unless people go to work in some landscape recognisable to L. S. Lowry, their jobs, conditions and efforts are not worth talking about.

    Consumer Debt
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of consumer debt in Britain; and what was the comparable figure in 1981.
    Mr. Maples: The level of outstanding consumer debt at 30 September this year was £52·6 billion. Because of changes in coverage, comparable figures are not available for 1981.
    Mr. Alton: Those figures, which show £52 billion of personal debt excluding mortgages, surely represent personal misery and are a major cause of family and social breakdown. Does the Minister think that it is now time to implement the proposals in the report "Escaping the Debt Trap" to introduce social loans, to take more stringent action against loan sharks who exploit poor people by their extortionate interest rates and to encourage a more responsible lending policy by banks?
    Mr. Maples: On the question of extortion and credit, the Director General of Fair Trading published a report in September which the Department of Trade and Industry is considering. As for the proposals contained in "Escaping the Debt Trap"—the hon. Gentleman kindly sent me a copy—it will not surprise him if I do not agree with all of them. It is not the Government's business to start telling banks and consumers what arrangements they should make between themselves although, clearly, some people are in difficulties with consumer credit. I do not think that the fact that consumer credit is at a high level is evidence that people are miserable—they have done things with the money that they have. Most have either made sensible investments or have bought what they wanted and could afford.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister recognise that the question of loan sharks has been on the agenda for the past 12 years, but that nothing positive has occurred other than the report to which he referred? Is not it time that the Government took on board that question and began to tackle the problem of loan sharks positively? Such action is certainly lacking at the moment.
    Mr. Maples: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), the Government have obtained a report from the Director General of Fair Trading, which was only published on 24 September. It is reasonable to give the appropriate Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry a little more time to respond to it.

    Public Spending
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about public spending levels.
    Mr. Mellor: The Government's plans for public spending were announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement on 6 November. Further details were set out in the written statement published on 13 November.
    Mr. Cohen: Most people who see the run-down state of schools and public transport do not think that the picture of public spending is as rosy as that set out by the Chancellor. Does the Minister remember that before the last general election the Government promised an increase
    1058
    in public spending of £11·2 billion in the following three years? In fact, it turned out to be a cut of £12·7 billion. In those circumstances, is not the Chancellor's promise of an extra £10 billion a similar Tory election hoax? Far from protecting public services, is not the Conservative party the party of public squalor?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman would do me a great favour if he could kindly confirm that his party, if in power, would spend an extra £13 billion above what we are spending. We have been trying to extract the figures from the Opposition. If the hon. Gentleman has agreed with members of his Front Bench that that is the line to take, I should be glad of confirmation.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that spending an extra £35 billion could be financed only by massive increases in taxation and higher interest rates, which would lead to a massive increase in the level of unemployment?
    Mr. Mellor: This is a point to which we return time and again. No Opposition have ever mutilated more forests in the interests of producing an endless stream of written policy documents containing come-ons and pledges of all sorts to every sectional interest, but when we add up those pledges and cost them, the Labour party becomes very coy. We want to know—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) can leap up and tell me—the House would be delighted to hear from him—how he will cover the difference between the £10 billion of extra taxation to which his party has already committed itself and the £35 billion of extra spending to which it has also committed itself?
    Mrs. Beckett rose——
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mrs. Beckett: When I am on the Government side of the House it will be my turn to answer questions. Now it is my turn to ask them.
    Speaking of how to meet levels of public spending, does the Chief Secretary recall the sharp increase in borrowing forecast in his public spending programmes? Will he confirm that it would be grossly irresponsible for any Government to cut the standard rate of income tax when public borrowing is about to shoot up in that way and that consequently, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes such a cut in his next Budget, he will have to make it up by increasing other taxes—perhaps VAT?
    Mr. Mellor: The record shows that during the 1980s we were able both to increase public expenditure in real terms by about 20 per cent. and to cut tax rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh yes—and for the decade following 1981–82, we reduced the tax burden.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is wrong.
    Mr. Mellor: It is not wrong and I understand that next week we shall have the opportunity to debate the correctness of what I have said.
    Mr. Nicholls: Given the new-found concern of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) about public borrowing, will my right hon. and learned Friend remind her that the previous Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer managed to borrow not only more money than any

    1059
    previous Chancellor, but more money than all previous Chancellors added together? What would that do for the living conditions of the poor?
    Mr. Mellor: It is an interesting fact that the fastest-growing public expenditure programme under the Labour Government was not the health service, education or social services, but debt interest.

    Fixed Investment
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest International Monetary Fund forecast for growth in United Kingdom business fixed investment in 1991.
    Mr. Mellor: A fall of 12 per cent. from the historically high levels reached in 1989 and 1990 is forecast. In 1991 business investment will still be 37 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979.
    Mr. Michie: Is the Chief Secretary aware of the IMF prediction of a further 2 per cent. cut in investment next year? Is he unaware of the ever-deepening industrial crisis if such cuts were to take place next year? Is not it time that he built the economy in a constructive way rather than just waffling about it?
    Mr. Mellor: As Gavyn Davies, who may be better known to some Opposition Members than he is to us, has said, the interesting thing is at how high a proportion of GDP investment has settled, notwithstanding the recession. It is 14·1 per cent. of GDP for the second half of 1991—that is a high level. If Labour Members wish regularly to employ international statistics on investment, they should bear in mind the fact that during the 1970s the average annual growth rate in business investment in the United Kingdom was 2·3 per cent., against an average of 3·1 per cent. for the Group of Seven. In the 1980s the average annual growth rate in business investment was 6·7 per cent. as against a Group of Seven average of 4·6 per cent. That is quite a transformation.
    Mr. Batiste: Is not it clear that the excellent record of business investment in the United Kingdom reflects the fact that business men recognise the Government's commitment to containing inflation in the long term? After all, it is the cost of capital which determines business investment. Would not that be threatened only by the advent of a Labour Government, with their profligate spending plans?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes. It also reflects the bold decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) to cut corporation tax and liberate a range of resources for investments which companies would choose for themselves rather than being pointed in a certain direction by the distorting effect of allowances. In the middle to late 1980s that led not only to an unprecedented increase in investment in terms of value, but to a sharp increase in the quality of that investment. That is evidenced by the unprecedented increase in the productivity of all manner of industries that has taken place since.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman have a serious look at capital allowances, especially for plant and machinery, which should not have only a 25 per cent. capital allowance? That is not an
    1060
    incentive; it is a penal rate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult the Confederation of British Industry, which is coming round to the view that a 40 per cent. rate—which is not enough—would be appropriate?
    Mr. Mellor: The real point that one needs to note is the increase in capital investment in plant and machinery under this Government—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads. Since I gave the figures to the House last time, they have not been contradicted. I will give them again and, if I am wrong, I shall have to be put right next week. Gross investment in plant and machinery in the last year in which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) had stewardship of these matters, at constant 1985 prices, was just over £17 billion. In 1990, it was over £32 billion. That is comparing like with like and is a sign of the real difference in investment under this Government.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend remember that under the previous Labour Government, the International Monetary Fund came to the rescue? Is not a warning signal needed for Labour Front-Bench Members over the current draft proposal on economic and monetary union, because it contains a no bail-out clause? This country had better not be under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Mellor: That is one of the subtleties of the European negotiations that should impinge on the consciousness of Opposition Members.
    Mr. John Smith: As the Chief Secretary takes refuge in international comparisons, especially with the other countries of the Group of Seven, will he explain why the United Kingdom is not only at the bottom of the investment league of the G7, but at the bottom of the investment league of leading European nations?
    Mr. Mellor: That is a very short-term statistic. It is clear that over the 1980s, our investment record has run well ahead of that of the rest of the Group of Seven. We shall return to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I can swap statistics quite soon and I look forward to it.

    Interest Rates
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of interest rates.
    Mr. Maples: Base rates are 10½ per cent.
    Sir John Farr: Does my hon. Friend believe that interest rates should be reduced by 0·5 per cent. now and that immediate action would save thousands of jobs? Do the Government have the ability to make that adjustment, or are they tied hand and foot by the exchange rate mechanism? If so, will my hon. Friend say so?
    Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend knows that our policy on interest rates is to set them in a way that is compatible with our commitment to the pound's band within the exchange rate mechanism and to bear down on inflation. That policy has been manifestly successful over the past 12 months in reducing the rate of inflation to 3·7 per cent.
    Sir Patrick Duffy: Is the Minister aware that a respectable reason for high interest rates is the control of inflation? However, given the claim of the Chancellor of

    1061
    the Exchequer, in response to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), about lower inflation, should not the Chancellor have a little more regard for board rooms where, in the balance between optimism and pessimism, the state of opinion remains distinctly negative, than for the exigencies of the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Maples: The mood in board rooms as disclosed by the CBI business confidence survey shows something rather different—a substantial and continuing increase in business confidence. Business men who are borrowers naturally want lower interest rates, but I am afraid that the Government have to take a rather broader view of what is in the interests of the economy. They cannot simply allow one sectional interest in the community to override others.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that high interest rates are a disincentive to investment? Instead of indulging in sterile exchanges of statistics across the Chamber, should not the House decide whether the level of investment in this country is adequate to ensure that our manufacturing base can compete against other countries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] How does the level of investment in this country compare with that of our major competitors?
    Mr. Maples: I am surprised that Opposition Members cheered that question. They obviously have short memories. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has given them the figures on investment in this country and they are rather good. Interest rates are set, as I said, in a way that is compatible with our commitment to the exchange rate mechanism and to bear down on inflation. That policy has been successful. There is nothing in the long run that is more damaging to investment than inflation.

    VAT
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the changes in the rates of value added tax since the beginning of 1979.
    Mr. Maples: From 18 June 1979, the higher rate of VAT was abolished and the standard rate of VAT became 15 per cent. On 1 April this year that rate was increased to 17½ per cent.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for his answer. It demonstrates clearly the enormous burden of indirect taxation that has been placed on the shoulders of millions of families since the Government came to power. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that VAT on road and rail transport will not be increased?
    Mr. Maples: What short memories we have. The hon. Gentleman does not remember that, under the previous Labour Government, the rate of VAT on things that they described as luxuries, such as petrol and caravans, was 25 per cent. I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will not go back to that.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend concede that the cause of the recession is not the high level of value added tax, but our membership of the exchange rate mechanism? Does he concede also that the question is not whether the war can be won, but whether it can be won with fewer
    1062
    casualties? Is not there a risk that, in future, the present Chancellor will be known in the economy as soldiers remember Field Marshal Lord Haig?
    Mr. Maples: No.

    PSBR
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the public sector borrowing requirement will be for 1992–93.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: The actual PSBR for 1992–93 will be set in the Budget. A working assumption of a PSBR of 3 per cent. of GDP was used to construct the autumn statement forecast.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Chancellor confirm that the large increase in the public sector borrowing requirement planned for next year will be to pay for the massive increase in unemployment which has been brought about by his own economic incompetence?
    Mr. Lamont: Of the £6 billion increase in the planning total, it is true that £4 billion is for social security, but not all that—indeed, I think that only about £2 billion—is the increase in unemployment benefit. There is another £2 billion for other benefits. There is also a large increase in the financing programmes of nationalised industries. I thought that Opposition Members wanted more investment in infrastructure. That is what they are always telling us and that is what they have got.
    Mr. Tim Smith: What would the public sector borrowing requirement be today if it was running at the same proportion of GDP as in 1975–76?
    Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend, remarkably, has those figures at his fingertips. He knows that it was 9½ per cent. of GDP. That would be in excess of £50 billion today. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out, when the Labour party was in power the fastest-growing item of Government expenditure was debt interest. They would certainly have had no chance of financing their programme without large increases both in taxation and in the borrowing requirement.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Chancellor have a word with his Chief Secretary and tell him the facts of life, which are that the burden of taxation is much higher than it was in 1970 when the Labour party was in office? As the Chancellor has decimated British industry, how will he pay for all the public borrowing? Has he a secret agenda to put VAT, for example, on items which bear no VAT at present, such as railway fares, books and periodicals? Has he a secret agenda to increase VAT to 22 per cent? Has he a secret agenda to do both?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's question makes no sense. He asked how we are going to pay for the borrowing. We shall pay for the borrowing by borrowing—that is the normal way in which one pays for it.
    Sir Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party implemented even a fraction of the spending priorities that it has been spreading around over the past year or two, to the tune of £30 billion or £40 billion extra expenditure, it would not only have to

    1063
    face the problem of raising taxation, but would have to resort to massive borrowing, which would increase interest rates and greatly damage the economy?
    Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party seems to have a new-found concern about the level of borrowing, but I must advise the Opposition that if they are serious about that, they could pay for their programme only by increases in taxation. There is no other way.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Field: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the anniversary of his Prime Ministership. May I remind him that inflation has come down from 10·9 to 3·7 per cent., that interest rates have been cut by 4·5 percentage points and that we have the lowest level of inflation for 25 years—below that of west Germany. Is not that in marked contrast to the events of 25 years ago this very day, as reported by The Times, when the then Economic Affairs Minister warned the Confederation of British Industry that if it breached the inflation-wage restraint, there would be a prices and incomes policy? It brought the worst economic turmoil that this country had seen since the industrial revolution. Will my right hon. Friend set out his policy for 1992—[interruption]—so that I can congratulate him on his anniversary again next year, when he will still be Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right about the success of the anti-inflationary policy. It is absolutely imperative that we get inflation down to the lowest level and keep it there, for most of our future prospects depend on that being the case. Happily, we are making excellent progress on inflation. It has come down and we shall ensure that it stays down.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the past 12 months, because of his policies, 768,000 people have lost their jobs, 100,000 people have lost their homes and 45,000 companies have gone bankrupt? How does he square that record with his promise a year ago today to build a country at ease with itself?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman examines completely what has happened during the past year with that objective in mind, he will find that not only have we cut inflation, as I have just said, but we have cut interest rates. We have given Britain the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. We have successfully come through a war. We have successfully produced a new initiative for the Kurds which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. We have introduced the largest debt relief package anywhere
    1064
    at any stage and we have made changes in both domestic and overseas policies which command the wide respect of people throughout the country.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is not it clear that everyone knows that the Prime Minister has reduced inflation only by creating a deep and lasting recession? The right hon. Gentleman has lost more jobs, more businesses and more homes than any Prime Minister in modern history. He truly will be known as the Prime Minister of evictions, unemployment and bankruptcies and that is why, as soon as the people get the chance at the next general election, they will stop him.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot seriously expect that the people of this country will buy the pig-in-a-poke policies that he produces. Now that inflation and interest rates are coming down, the economy is moving into an upturn and prospects are getting better, as even the Labour party's former adviser has agreed and written repeatedly in the newspapers.
    Mr. Kinnock: If there are any pig-in-a-poke policies, the recession policies of the Government are the pig and 768,000 people have got the poke.
    The Prime Minister: I can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman's last question was a knee-jerk reaction.

    Derbyshire
    Mrs. Currie: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Derbyshire.
    The Prime Minister: I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country and very much hope to include Derbyshire.
    Mrs. Currie: Is the Prime Minister aware that in south Derbyshire, having seen off Arthur Scargill, we have a vigorous, successful engineering industry, a high level of exports and a young and growing work force with a low level of unemployment? We know that we are far better off in Europe—indeed, we are well off in Europe—and far better off in Europe than out. May I therefore pass on to the Prime Minister the good wishes of all my constituents for his efforts at Maastricht and hope that when he has finished there he will come up to Derbyshire and tell us all about it?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I share her view that industry, commerce and individuals in this country are better off in the European Community than outside it. Many companies are increasing their sales and increasing their relationship with Europe week after week. One of our objectives at Maastricht will be to achieve stricter implementation of Community measures to ensure that there is genuinely a level playing field for British industry and commerce in Europe.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Prime Minister comes to Derbyshire, whatever else he does, he wants to avoid canvassing with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). When she went to Bolsover a few years ago at the time of the salmonella in eggs crisis, she went into South Normanton marketplace and met a woman there who said, "Hey you, are you Currie, the one about the salmonella?" The hon. Lady said, "Oh, yes. Are you going to vote Tory?" The woman said, "Look, I've got six of

    1065
    these eggs in my basket and if you don't sling your hook back to south Derbyshire, you'll have these on top of your head."
    Mr. Speaker: I did not detect a question in all that, but carry on.
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that many people in Bolsover will carry eggs in their basket in the hope of meeting the hon. Gentleman.

    Engagements
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Sir David Steel: Does the Prime Minister accept that any reform of the government of Scotland implies some useful reform of the procedures of this place? As it is now three weeks since the Kincardine and Deeside by-election, when will he respond to our invitation to meet him to discuss these serious matters?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that we believe that the Union between the United Kingdom and Scotland is important. We have no plans to change it.
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend recall the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) on Tuesday about monetary union? He said that he was surprised at the contradictory answers which the House had received from the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition on this complex issue. Why was my right hon. Friend surprised?
    The Prime Minister: I am always hoping for something better from the right hon. Gentlemens although, alas, I rarely get it. The Leader of the Opposition claims that he has been a consistent supporter of the Common Market for years, but everyone knows that he was a consistent and bitter opponent of it for many years. Many of us doubt that he has really changed his mind.

    Liverpool
    Mr. Parry: To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to make his first visit to Liverpool.
    The Prime Minister: I am making a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Liverpool in them.
    Mr. Parry: When the Prime Minister visits Liverpool will he meet some of the local trade union leaders and some of the long-term unemployed, especially the construction workers who lobbied Parliament last week? Unemployment is very high in Liverpool. My constituency has the highest level in England, Scotland and Wales with an average of 30 per cent. When the Prime Minister arrives, will he let people know that he is coming? His
    1066
    predecessor, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), crept into Liverpool and crept out again without letting people know that she was coming. That was an insult to the people of Liverpool and I hope that it will never be repeated.
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly bear that in mind. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about unemployment in Liverpool and elsewhere. I know that he will join me in welcoming the announcement yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury at the start of the project to construct a new building for Customs and Excise at Queen's dock. When completed, it will provide more than 800 new jobs locally.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend give his assurance that, neither explicitly nor implicitly will any deal be done at Maastricht?—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It will have to be done in Liverpool, I am afraid.

    Engagements
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Portsmouth, which is connected to the continent by the finest ferry services in the country, there is a growing realisation that success at Maastricht is crucial to trade and investment, on which jobs depend, and that the main prize to be achieved is an agreement which recognises the importance of closer co-operation between European nations rather than moves towards inevitable integration?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is crucial to our trade and investment that we continue to play a leading role in the Community. All the Governments of the Community, without exception, are working for an agreement at Maastricht, but there are important national interests at stake. I am negotiating for an agreement that reflects our national interests and is also in the interests of a wider Europe.
    Mrs. Wise: Does the Prime Minister understand that his description of the Sunday trading laws as "bizarre" has encouraged law breaking? Will he withdraw that word and condemn the retail giant law breakers?
    The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Lady would now recognise that the description that I gave was entirely apposite. The present situation is unsatisfactory. There are acute difficulties in changing that in the short term. The House of Lords has concluded that our Sunday trading laws are unclear and has therefore referred them to the European Court of Justice to clarify whether they are compatible with European law. We hope that the European Court will make its ruling at the earliest possible moment so that the House of Lords can give a judgment. In the light of that, the next step will be for the Government to identify proposals that will command the support of the House.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on 15 May 1983 he said:
    "We want out of the Common Market?"
    Could he also tell me whether he said on 16 December 1983:
    "We are committed to a non-nuclear defence policy?"
    Also will he confirm that in August 1991 he said:
    "I think the people trust me. They trust me for my word and my attitude."
    Would he also tell me——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough.
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that, of course, I made none of those statements, but I believe that each of them can be attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. It was also the Leader of the Opposition who said that if he were to abandon socialism he would not be worth voting for.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Will the Prime Minister tell the House where my constituent Joanne, who is on a vocational course, receives £35 a week, lives on her own through no choice of her own, occasionally goes without food and sits in the dark because she has no coins for the meter, fits into his citizens charter and the classless society?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot comment on individual cases without all the information available in front of me. If the hon. Gentleman will provide me with all the information, I shall examine the case.
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his clear and positive support for finding a solution in Cyprus. Will he now seek the urgent help of the President of the United States in making it clear to the new Government in Turkey that the west expects a positive and constructive contribution to the United Nations peace process from now on?
    The Prime Minister: I have discussed Cyprus with President Bush on more than one occasion and we both actively supported the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General. A settlement will require good will on both sides and I hope that the new Turkish Government will play a full, constructive and early part in the Secretary-General's renewed efforts to find a settlement. A settlement in Cyprus is long overdue.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: Have the Government finally abandoned the erstwhile Tory doctrine that the rule of law must be upheld in all circumstances, now that the Attorney-General is turning a blind eye to big supermarkets breaking the Sunday trading law and as the poll tax non-payment campaign has apparently recruited the architect's daughter?
    The Prime Minister: The law must be obeyed. In the case of Sunday trading, it is not at the moment clear, because of the House of Lords' ruling, what the law may be. In the case of the community charge, the law is clear. People should pay their community charge. It might have helped if the hon. Gentleman had given people a better example in that respect.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Transport and Works Bill.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Prison Security Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 5 DECEMBER—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion described as "The Economy and the Continuing Recession".
FRIDAY 6 DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions
MONDAY 9 DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill.
As I announced last Thursday, I can now confirm that European Standing Committee B will meet at 4 pm on Monday 2 December to consider European Community documents relating to indirect taxation. Details have already been given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 4 December
Floor of the House
European Community Documents

a) 8356/90

Agricultural Production Methods

b) 7570/91

Development and Future of Common Agricultural Policy

c) 8886/91

CAP Reform: Legal Texts

d) 8950/91

CAP Reform: Legal Texts (Milk Sector)

e) 9136/91

CAP Reform: Legal Texts (Accompanying Measures)

f) 8766/91

Raw Tobacco

Reports of European Legislation Committee

a) HC 29-ii (1990–91)

b) NC 29-xxix (1990–91), and HC 29-xxx (1990–91) and HC 24-iii (1991–92)

c) HC 24-ii (1991–92)

d) HC 24-iii (1991–92)

e) HC 24-iii (1991–92)

f) HC 24-ii (1991–92).]

Dr. Cunningham: I welcome the debate on agriculture and the reform of the common agricultural policy. I thank the Leader of the House for arranging the debate which, I am sure, will be generally welcome throughout the House. May I press him to give consideration now to a debate on the fishing industry at an early date? There is widespread concern in the country—particularly in fishing port constituencies and not least in my constituency of
1070
Copeland—about the problems facing the British fishing industry. I am sure that a debate on fishing would also be generally welcomed by hon. Members.
As today we have heard more than 900 redundancies announced by British Rail Engineering Limited and more than 400 further redundancies regrettably announced by Rolls-Royce, as well as reports of increasing difficulty, even among graduates, in finding employment and career opportunities, is it not wholly appropriate that next week we are to have a debate in Opposition time on the economy and the continuing deep and damaging recession? As that debate is to be held on Thursday, in part at least to accommodate the timetable of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when business questions will inevitably eat into Opposition Supply time, may we have a guarantee that the Government will not make any additional statements that day?
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of my request last Thursday for a debate on the economy of London. Has he seen the reports today of the imminent report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte on the way in which our capital city is losing its world status due to the problems of decline, congestion and poor transport? Is he aware that such a loss damages not only London but the nation as a whole? I urge him to reconsider his decision of last week and to find Government time for a debate on the future of London and its economy.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the debate on the common agricultural policy. It is a timely debate. We have reached the point in negotiations on reform when it would be useful to have a debate in the House. I appreciate the difficulties that have arisen in arranging the debate next week at a time convenient for everyone. I have endeavoured to do my best and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about that.
I recognise the importance of fishing and we are coming to an important point in the European Community's year on fishing. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am endeavouring to arrange an early debate, and in good time, on that point.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman's comments about next Thursday's debate, he knows that it is not possible to give a guarantee because absolutely urgent matters, about which the House may want a statement, may arise on the day. Of course, I cannot predict whether that will be the case. I shall use my best endeavours to ensure that we do not have a statement on that day, thus allowing as much time as possible after the business statement for the debate.
The debate next week will be about the economy in general, and I am sure that it will be possible then to refer to economic matters affecting London. As is clear from the business of the House just now, in the run-up to the Christmas recess there is a great deal of legislative business to be undertaken, so I cannot promise a separate debate on London's economy in Government time. Hon. Members wishing to speak on the subject will have to endeavour to use the opportunities next week.
Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend explain why, when between five and six days were given to the discussion of the Queen's Speech, only two days were given for discussion of Maastricht, and then only about a quarter of those hon. Members wishing to

1071
speak were able to do so, and they were subject to the Whip? In the future, may we please have a three-day, open-ended debate, without the Whip?
Mr. MacGregor: It is customary to have the number of days that were allotted to the Queen's Speech debate. Part of those five days involved foreign affairs and other issues, when hon. Members could have raised the matters to which my hon. Friend refers. I endeavoured to find as much time as possible for the debate on the European Community, the run-up to Maastricht and the two intergovernmental draft treaties, and we extended the time to enable more hon. Members to get in. It is always a question of balance. I cannot give any guarantee about what we shall do in future.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House take urgent action to rearrange the business for Monday so that we may debate the redundancy laws which allow Rolls-Royce Motors Limited to send a motor cyclist courier scurrying around my constituency handing out redundancy notices at 11.30 at night, and British Rail Engineering Limited, a company created entirely through a bargain basement sale of taxpayers' assets, to lay off large numbers of skilled men and women without any proper consultation and without any hope of that company remaining viable in the future, if there should ever be a future in this country for trained builders?
Mr. MacGregor: While I do not wish to comment on the case to which the hon. Lady refers—because I do not know the details—I do not intend to rearrange the business for next Monday. We have important business to undertake on that day. The hon. Lady will know that questions concerning redundancies are for the company concerned. If it is felt that aspects of the procedures are not correct—I cannot comment on that because I do not know—that is clearly a matter for a tribunal.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend really happy with the state of the Sunday trading laws and the announcements made by traders in the past few days? Should not the House deal with the matter speedily? Otherwise, it will be assumed that a suspending power is operating.
Mr. MacGregor: That is certainly not the case. We tried to deal with the matter speedily with a response to a private notice question and a statement yesterday. As the Prime Minister made clear a few moments ago, the House of Lords has referred one aspect of the issue before it to the European Court of Justice and we must now wait to see what the court says. That means that the law is currently unclear, as the Prime Minister said. Once we have received the view of the European Court of Justice and the House of Lords has considered it, the Government will make recommendations and proposals on those matters. The whole House recognises some of the difficulties of the existing law, and I thought that yesterday's exchanges showed the difficulties of reaching an agreement, as we found when we tried to deal with the matter in 1986.
Mr. James Wallace: I thank the Leader of the House for saying that there will be a debate next week on agriculture, which will be welcome, and for saying that there will be a debate on fisheries before the European Council meeting.
1072
As we are about to have a statement on NHS trust hospitals in Wales, may we expect a statement next week from the Secretary of State for Scotland on applications for NHS trust hospitals in Scotland? Many of us feel that, with overwhelming opposition from doctors, consultants, nurses, hospital staff and the communities served by those hospitals, the matter should be open and shut: those trust hospitals should not go ahead. Why is the Secretary of State delaying the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: Those are important matters and the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving proper consideration to the recommendations that have been put to him. I cannot give a precise date, but I know that my right hon. Friend is anxious to make a statement as soon as he has made a decision, which I hope will be fairly soon.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at early-day motion 287?
[That this House notes with concern the intention of the Lord Advocate to instruct procurators fiscal generally not to prosecute men involved in homosexual activity with young males aged between 16 and 21 years; notes that this is an arbitrary lowering of the homosexual age of consent in Scotland which has not been debated by Parliament; considers that such a policy will put adolescent males and females at risk; and calls on the Secretary of State for Scotland to request the Lord Advocate to enforce the law.]
It refers to a change in the law in Scotland without it having been debated carefully in the House and a decision taken. May we have an early opportunity to debate this fundamental issue, which causes considerable concern?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, prosecution policy in Scotland is exclusively a matter for the Lord Advocate, who has directed a review of prosecution policy in Scotland in that area of the law. That review has not concluded and the Lord Advocate expects to give guidance to procurators fiscal in the near future in relation to policy on certain aspects of the prosecution of homosexual acts which are criminal offences.
Mr. William McKelvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House as to whether he is making any progress in setting up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I have already said on that matter in the House.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend make an early statement on the outcome of his welcome study on the hours, procedures and facilities of the House? Has he had time to reflect on whether it may be for the good order of our proceedings to have rules about facilities such as the Tea Room and the behaviour of Members?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that point comes within the Select Committee's remit, although I have noticed some comments on that subject today and I think that it is for hon. Members to observe decorum. The Committee is proceeding extremely well and working hard on its remit. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have responded considerably to the questionnaire and many of us have already given evidence. I hope that the Committee can come forward with recommendations in

1073
good time for the House to debate them and perhaps even take decisions on them, but that is a matter for the Committee.
Mr. William Ross: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the finding of a fair employment tribunal in Northern Ireland that the display of a likeness of Her Majesty at the workplace in Northern Ireland is discrimatory, and therefore illegal, and will have to be removed by the employers? Does it not follow from that finding that Her Majesty's portrait will have to be removed from all Government buildings in Northern Ireland? May we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on that?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not aware of that matter, but I will discuss it with my right hon. Friend.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend noticed in recent years the increasing use of the Order Paper for personal attacks on hon. Members and the way in which some hon. Members are interfering in the constituencies of others, a habit which is not confined to one side of the House? While I appreciate that my right hon. Friend cannot do anything on the business next week, will he join me in deploring this abuse of the Order Paper?
Mr. MacGregor: That is a matter which might be considered by other Committees of the House. I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I agree that there have always been conventions which have, on the whole, been well observed in relation to hon. Members raising issues related to other Members' constituencies.
Mr. Dave Nellist: May we have a debate next week on law and order? We could then ask why—this follows on from the question of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) about hon. Members talking about other Members' constituencies—Maria Jones, who is 31 weeks pregnant, was sentenced at the beginning of this week to 60 days imprisonment for inability to pay the poll tax in Gloucestershire, despite her offers to pay £5 per week out of her £42 benefit? We are given lectures on the sanctity of the law and told that "the law is the law", but when stores such as B and Q open on a Sunday they receive letters from the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Tory party thanking them for memorable and enjoyable evenings at Conservative party conference balls. Is it not true that it is not what one does but who one knows? If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the jibe that the Government have been bought and paid for, perhaps he will arrange a debate to discuss the subject.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not know about the individual case involving the community charge, but a debate would be totally unnecessary because the hon. Gentleman's charges about the company he mentioned and the allegations that he implied are absolutely untrue. I wish to make it clear that I totally reject them. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time, the problem in relation to Sunday trading is that the law is now unclear as a result of the referral to the European
1074
Court of Justice by the House of Lords. That is the clear distinction between Sunday trading and other issues such as the community charge, where the law is clear.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Without wishing to associate myself with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), may I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about a debate on Sunday trading? Whatever may not be clear, two factors are crystal clear. Does my right hon. Friend agree, first, that the intention of the law was clear and specific and, secondly, that those people who are violating the law are deliberately holding Parliament in contempt, which is intolerable?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that is an accurate description of the current position. I believe that it was made clear yesterday that the law is now unclear and we are awaiting the House of Lords ruling following referral of one aspect of the issue to the European Court.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House say more about the timing of a statement on hospital opt-outs in Scotland? Is he aware that the Scottish Health Minister intimated on television in Scotland that a statement would be made before the end of the month? If the Leader of the House will not abide by that, will he at least give a guarantee that the statement will be made in public in this place and not sneaked out to one of the few remaining Tory lapdogs on the Back Benches?
Mr. MacGregor: Two things are clear: first, there will not be a statement before the end of this week and, secondly, the statement will be made in the House.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Was my right hon. Friend really saying in a reply to an earlier question that, if an appeal has gone to the European Court via the House of Lords, meanwhile the law should not be enforced even when there is a determined intention to break that law on a wholesale scale between now and Christmas?
Mr. MacGregor: No, I am not saying that. I was making a comment on the uncertainty of the law. As for prosecutions under the Shops Act 1950, Parliament has made it clear that that is a matter for local authorities to decide.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware of the pressure developing among some countries for an end to the ban by the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species on world trade in elephant ivory? Will he make it clear that Her Majesty's Government totally oppose the ending of that world trade ban? May we have a debate on elephant conservation and other animal welfare issues?
Mr. MacGregor: The Government's position is clear. It is not necessary to have a debate on the matter, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point about apparent pressure from other countries to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I support other hon. Members' requests for a debate on Sunday trading. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who failed to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on the private notice question and the statement yesterday are strongly in favour of people in a free society being able to choose whether they shop or trade on Sunday, and that we should have liked to point

1075
out that many Opposition Members have a considerable financial interest, as they are sponsored by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and other unions, which should be declared before they oppose Sunday trading?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is certainly right that hon. Members hold a variety of views on the matter. It is not necessary to have a debate on the matter to reveal once again that obvious point, which was made clear in 1986 and which is why at that time Parliament failed to change the law.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On that matter, is it not true that the chairman of the executive committee of the national union of the Conservative party and the chairman of the Shop Hours Reform Council are one and the same person, Sir Basil Feldman? Is he not the man who is advocating all this law breaking, and is it not about time that he resigned his position from one of those bodies?
Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that, just as hon. Members can express their views on particular aspects of policy, so may citizens outside.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if we could confine questions to business next week.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is there a possibility of changing the business on one day next week to allow the House to debate inflation, which would give us the opportunity to congratulate the Government on their success in bringing inflation down to 3·7 per cent. while at the same time pointing out how damaging the Opposition's high spending, high taxation, high inflation policies would be, being bound to lead to massive unemployment and social discontent of the order that we had in the past?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree, and I could add other matters such as the danger to employment prospects of a national minimum wage. It is not necessary to change next week's business to do that, however, as I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will be making precisely that point in the debate next Thursday.
Mr. David Winnick: May we have a statement from the Home Secretary early next week about Le Pen's proposed visit and an explanation why such a fascist, racist agitator is being allowed into Britain? Before we are given lectures about free speech, as there are laws in Britain about incitement to race hatred, should not the leader of the National Front in France be told clearly that he will not be allowed to come into Britain on the ground that it would not be conducive to the public good?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, as has been made clear before, that Mr. Le Pen's views on racial matters are totally rejected by the Government, but given his position as an elected member of the European Parliament and of the French National Assembly, to ban his entry would be a radical step. Our present view is that the evidence so far does not justify the exercise of the Home Secretary's powers of exclusion.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the result of the present GATT negotiations, which I understand have reached a delicate stage, is important to the British textile industry. Since many people are worried about the outcome, will he find time for a debate which would give us an opportunity to put many of their views forward?
Mr. MacGregor: I well understand my hon. Friend's point in relation to the textile industry, but I am sure that she will also agree that the current GATT Uruguay round is extremely important for many other reasons. We must all hope that agreement is reached on the matter and that the round can finally be concluded by the end of this year. In the meantime, as my hon. Friend will know, all GATT parties have agreed to extend the multi-fibre arrangement to the end of 1992 on existing terms, and the EC is renewing bilateral agreements for one year on that basis, which protects the position for the time being. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot promise a debate. We must all hope that the negotiations will have a successful outcome.
Rev. Martin Smyth: If the Leader of the House cannot make time for a debate on Sunday trading, will he make time to debate the sacking from the New York Irish People of a journalist who wrote an article condemning the attack on Musgrave Park hospital in my constituency? That would give the House an opportunity to make abundantly plain that NORAID is not a benefactor to anyone in Northern Ireland but an IRA support group. It would also give American Congressmen and others an opportunity to take a stand for civil rights in their country.
Mr. MacGregor: I have not read the article in question, but I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's final two points. I am sure that the whole House does so, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity today to make the position clear.
Mr. Michael Irvine: My right hon. Friend will be aware that at a late hour last night the House debated the European Community budget. He may not be aware that, of the 90 minutes allocated, no fewer than 65 minutes were taken up by the speeches of the two Front Bench spokesmen, leaving Back Benchers only 25 minutes to discuss that incredibly important subject. I can tell my right hon. Friend that there was a deep sense of anger among Back Benchers at the way in which our time was limited. That anger was felt not only on both sides of the Chamber, but by Euro-sceptics and Euro-integrationists alike. In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend consider making more time available during the current week to debate again the European Community budget and its implications?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and other right hon. and hon. Members were unable to participate in last night's debate. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments about the length of speeches. I remind the House that we have just had a two-day debate on European Community matters. I followed pretty well the normal practice in relation to last night's budget debate. A slightly longer period was available last year, but on this occasion I had to bear in mind our recent two-day debate. I also took into account the fact that next week the House will have a further full

1077
day's debate on the common agricultural policy, which takes up about 65 per cent. of the Community budget. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who could not participate last night will be able to speak in next week's debate.
Mr. Richard Caborn: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 173 on South Africa.
(That this House welcomes the convening of an all-party conference in South Africa to prepare the basis for a new democratic and non-racial constitutional order based on one person, one vote in South Africa; expresses the hope that this will lead to rapid agreement on the establishment of an interim government to rule South Africa during the period of transition; and urges Her Majesty's Government to use its influence with its partners in the European Community and the Commonwealth as well as in the United Nations to achieve an international consensus in favour of such an agreement.]
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the House agree that there have been significant developments in South Africa, such as the convening of the all-party conference at the end of this week and again later in December. When Nelson Mandela attends the United Nations General Assembly next week, it may pass a consensus resolution which has existed since 1979. A similar resolution may be passed at Maastricht. Those developments are probably as significant as the release of Nelson Mandela and ought to be the subject of debate, as early-day motion 173 suggests. Will the Leader of the House allow time for that?
Mr. MacGregor: The Government's position in relation to constitutional talks and other developments is clear. We hope that they will start as soon as possible, and are encouraged that negotiations may begin before the end of this year. We shall continue, with our Community partners, to use our influence to encourage South Africa's transition to a non-racial, democratic society. As I cannot find time for a debate next week, the hon. Gentleman will have to raise that issue in other ways. Nevertheless, the Government's position has been made clear on many occasions recently in the House.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I help my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by giving him some advice on the subject of next week's business? If the House had more debates and less legislation, many of the points made to my right hon. Friend by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House—for example, in relation to the EC budget debate—could be met.
I support the plea made in all parts of the House for a debate next week on Sunday trading. It is not good enough for my right hon. Friend to say that it is up to local government to decide whether to take legal action, when the big supermarket chains have threatened to take local authorities to the cleaners on costs if the authorities lose their cases. There is a Shops Act on the statute book. Until it is taken off the statute book or amended, the Government should condemn the action of those large supermarkets.
Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear that I do not think that there will be time for a debate on the Shops Act next week.
As for my hon. Friend's opening comments, I analysed the amount of time spent on Government legislation on the Floor of the House before I gave my personal evidence to the Procedure Committee. It was interesting to note that about 25 per cent. of the time is taken up with legislation, while 75 per cent. is devoted to general matters. At this time of year, when we are anxious to get the legislative process going and the Bills into Committee, there is rather more concentration on legislation. That is inevitable, and it places some constraint on general debates.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 270, entitled "Mr. Tindall's national insurance contributions"?
[That this House is dismayed that a person can work for 37 years and pay full national insurance contributions, be made redundant due to a pit closure, then in two subsequent years obtain full national insurance credits, topped up only with four voluntary contributions, suffer a heart attack and then be refused consideration for invalidity benefit on the grounds that he does not have sufficient contributions or credits to his name; notes that this has happened to Mr. Tindall of 69 Staniforth Avenue, Highwood Park, Eckington, Derbyshire, because he went on a fortnight's holiday in 1988 after being badly advised at an unemployment benefit office, thus cutting across three weeks during which he could otherwise have signed on for work and that he also started work in the final week of the 1988–89 tax year and thereby lost a further credit; notes that Mr. Tindall made voluntary payments to cover these four "missing" weeks but that these contributions can only be used for pension purposes and not for invalidity benefit considerations; further notes that Mr. Tindall cannot qualify for income support due to his wife's modest earnings; believes that a great injustice has been done due to the inflexibility of current Government rules; and calls for the necessary changes in the regulations forthwith.]
The motion is signed by me, and by 70 of my hon. Friends.
Mr. Tindall paid full contributions for 37 years. After being made redundant from the pit, he received full credits over two years, topped up by four voluntary contributions. After a heart attack, he is not eligible even to be considered for invalidity benefit. He cannot obtain any income allowance, because his wife is working as a nurse.
Should we not discuss the silly regulations which prevent Mr. Tindall and others in his position from being considered for invalidity and other benefits?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the terms of the early-day motion. I have not had an opportunity to study the case, but I will draw the motion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Can my right hon. Friend find time soon for another debate on the question of security in Northern Ireland in the light of what has been revealed following last night's assassination attempt on the family of Dr. Laurence Kennedy, which was carried out simply because Dr. Kennedy wishes to stand as a parliamentary candidate?
It was announced this morning that the police had been prevented from questioning the four would-be assassins, who were caught red-handed, by the simple device of a solicitor's asking for a judicial review before they were

1079
questioned. The position is serious. However much security we put into Northern Ireland in the form of efficient police action or even extra troops, it is no use if they cannot act quickly when they have a suspect in their hands.
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House was extremely concerned to learn of last night's attack on Dr. Kennedy's home, and will wish to express its congratulations on the way in which the family responded and its relief that they escaped injury. I will draw the specific point raised by my hon. Friend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Leader of the House promise us a statement on Monday about the sale of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in Cardiff to its new Dutch owners, which I believe is to take place at the weekend? How many experienced civil servants are to be sent home on gardening leave pending their new employment? Will he also tell us whether the rumours flying around the Cardiff department are correct? It is said that the sale price to the new Dutch owners, and the receipts to the taxpayer, are nowhere near the £100 million to £150 million that was promised during the passage of the legislation, and may be only a peppercorn £5 million or £6 million.
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a statement on Monday, because we have a heavy load of business on that day, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. John Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on constitutional affairs next week? He may be aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the extraordinary statement that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party made last week, when he said that his party no longer accepted the sovereignty of Parliament.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is referring, I suspect, to a referendum. The position of the Government and, I think, of the Labour party has been made clear on that. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on the stance that the Liberal Democrats appear to have taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Unfortunately, none of them is here to explain their stance, but I hope that there will be opportunities to explore the matter in forthcoming weeks.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Has my right hon. Friend noticed how the appetite of the Opposition Front Bench for debates on health care has diminished sharply as the good news continues to roll in about national health service trusts giving better care for patients and better value for money in the health service? Is he aware that senior medical staff at Queen's medical centre in Nottingham voted overwhelmingly to try to obtain trust status in the next wave, thus defeating Labour's disgraceful smears and scares which sought deliberately to frighten elderly and vulnerable people into believing falsehoods about the NHS?
Mr. MacGregor: I have, indeed, noticed the point that my hon. Friend makes and he is entirely right about the success of our reforms. I hope that we shall find many other opportunities—perhaps very soon—to continue to convey the good news.
Mr. John Marshall: May I support the plea for an early debate on London? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would like to point out which London councils have the highest community charges, the most uncollected rent, the worst school results and the largest number of empty council houses and that the Government are giving much more money to London Transport than the Labour-controlled GLC ever gave?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who may be able to make some of those points in next week's debate on the economy. They are certainly relevant to the economy in London and he is right to draw attention to the damaging policies of Labour councils.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Further to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), may we discuss at an early opportunity the progress on hospital trust status and on the Government's health reforms? That would give me an opportunity to praise my own excellent health authority, which is not only one of the 30 most efficient in the country and has two hospitals applying for phase 3 trust status, but plans to amalgamate with nearby Bromsgrove health authority to diminish administrative costs, reduce duplication and put the money saved into patient care.
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to make that point. I hope to find opportunities for him to make the same points about his constituency and for other right hon. and hon. Friends to make similar points about theirs.

National Health Service (Wales)
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the national health service in Wales.
I am pleased to be able to announce to the House next year's Government expenditure on health and personal social services in Wales. Funding will increase by a massive £186 million, taking national health service spending in Wales to further record levels in real terms. My proposals mean that national health service expenditure in Wales will be boosted to £651 a year for every man, woman and child in Wales, or, put another way, more than £2,600 for a family of four.
The Government are determined to ensure that health in Wales is accorded the highest possible priority. The figures reflect our personal commitment—and my commitment in particular—to secure the investment for health care in Wales that will enable the national health service to go forward from strength to strength.
Our commitment to the national health service cannot be clearer. We are giving it the support that it needs to move forward quickly on the imaginative and exciting course on which it is embarked. But that support is not limited just to words: I am backing my judgment with cash and at record levels.
Planned provision for the national health service in Wales will increase to £1,877 million next year. That compares with the figure in 1979–80 of £481 million. That is £1,877 million against £481 million—the record speaks for itself. Of the £1,877 million, £1,420 million is earmarked for hospital, community health and related services. This includes the costs arising from Welsh patients who travel to England for treatment following the new charging arrangements.
The new money that the Government are making available will provide the national health service in Wales with an increase of 11·1 per cent. on comparable expenditure plans for this year. In addition, health authorities will keep as a minimum an extra £13 million generated by cash-releasing efficiency savings.
I expect to announce allocations to health authorities next month, but I can say today that my proposals will enable them to continue to plan with confidence for the health care needs of the people of Wales. They will be in a position to increase activity significantly next year and this will maintain downward pressure on waiting times. In addition, capital allocations will provide for the building of new hospitals and the uprating and expansion of existing units.
I also wish to refer to the development of national health service trusts in Wales. Pembrokeshire health authority formally applied to become a national health service trust on 16 July and the statutory consultation period ended on 31 October. Taking account of the views received, alongside the individual merits of the application, I have decided to establish the Pembrokeshire national health service trust with an operational date of 1 April 1992. The order giving effect to this decision has been made today and the trust will commence "shadow" running on 16 December.
Pembrokeshire will be the first trust in Wales and, I believe, clearly shows the way forward for the future
1082
delivery of health care. I am on record with my pledge that applications for trust status in Wales will not be approved unless I personally am convinced that patients will benefit.
Local people can be justifiably proud of the NHS in Pembrokeshire and I am confident that the trust will generate even stronger links within the community in responding to present and future health care needs. The local identity of the national health service trust will be reinforced by a board drawn from local people and led by Mr. A. J. G. Bowen.
Elsewhere in Wales, NHS trusts are progressively being seen as the natural organisational model for patient care. They bring the management of health services closer to the local communities and respond directly to local needs. When I met health authority chairmen last week, they reported that they expected a significant number of expressions of interest to be lodged to become national health service trusts in 1993. They expect that they will account for nearly half our major patient care providers in Wales. I expect shortly to announce the details of hospitals and other health service units invited to proceed to draw up applications.
As part of the consultative arrangements on the trust application, I had proposed separately the creation of a new West Wales health authority. In the form suggested, this proposal had only limited support locally and, in recognition of this, I have decided not to proceed with the new authority. As a consequence, Pembrokeshire and East Dyfed health authorities will be retained, with Captain Phillips remaining as chairman of Pembrokeshire. However, I shall be looking to both health authorities and the Dyfed family health services authority to work closely together in developing clear strategies to identify and then meet local needs. The residents of Pembrokeshire will expect no less.
A further growing development in the NHS in Wales is the creation of GP fund holders. I have already given details of the seven practices established as fund holders in April this year. I can now tell the House that a further 19 practices have successfully applied for fund-holding status from 1 April 1992. Final decisions rest with the GPs involved, but I will provide in due course details of the practices which will formally become GP fund holders in 1992.
Those developments and the extra resources that I announced earlier will enable the NHS in Wales to respond positively to the challenges of the future. The Principality can look forward with confidence, secure in the knowledge that our vision of the future is founded on a greater range of services, more opportunities for individual choice, and even higher standards of care for everyone.
Mr. Barry Jones: We know what the right hon. Gentleman is attempting. He is putting his sugared financial announcement on a bitter trust pill. On the finances, we have seen it all before. During the run-in to the general election there is a little more money, but do not Conservative cuts come after a general election victory, if they have one?
The key part of the statement was about trusts. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that more than 2,500 people are waiting longer than one month for urgent surgery—more than 12,000 are waiting more than a year

1083
—and that more than 86,000 are waiting for a first out-patient appointment. That is after the Conservative Government have been in power for 12 years.
The right hon. Gentleman has just said:
"Pembrokeshire will be the first trust in Wales and, I believe, clearly shows the way forward for the future delivery of health care."
With that sentence he threatens Wales. It is symbolic. Clearly, hospital trusts are to be the norm if the Government are re-elected.
The statement that we have just heard is one of the most disgraceful and extraordinary ever to be made by a Secretary of State for Wales. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that time and again the Conservative vision of a commercialised internal market in patients with opt-out trust hospitals competing for patient contracts has always been rejected by the people of Wales. Why, even with the spectre of general election annihilation before them, are Welsh Office Ministers persisting with that discredited plan?
The statement shows again that the national health service is not safe in Conservative hands. Does the Secretary of State accept that the opt-out proposals for a Pembrokeshire trust are nothing more than an elaborate con job paid for by a £50,000 Welsh Office sweetener? Will he admit that the trust, and any other trusts, will be unaccountable to the local community and will take, in secrecy, behind closed doors, crucial decisions on health care for Pembrokeshire? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the process of creating trusts in Wales will be stopped by an incoming Labour Secretary of State for Wales and that any hospital that has already opted out before the general election will be brought back under the management of the local health authority?
What the right hon. Gentleman has said today will never be accepted by the people of Wales. When the general election takes place, the right hon. Gentleman and his contemptible proposals will be swept away.
Mr. Hunt: On the first point about funding, the hon. Gentleman said that he had seen it all before. He has seen it all before under this Government, but he did not see it when Labour was last in office. I remind him of the figures. In 1979–80, we spent in the national health service——
Mr. Win Griffiths: Give us the waiting list figures.
Mr. Hunt: I will come to those.
In 1979–80, we spent in the national health service £170 for every man, woman and child in Wales. If spending this year was at the same level, uprated to take account of inflation, we would now be spending at the rate of £392 for every man, woman and child. The actual figure this year is £614 and, under my proposals, it will go up to £651[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not like the figures, but they cannot dispute that the figure for spending in 1979–80 was £481 million in cash terms. My announcement increases it in real terms by 60 per cent.
Under the previous Labour Government, the number of new out-patients treated fell by 3 per cent. Under this Government, the increase between 1979 and 1990–91 has been 29 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979 under Labour, the number of in-patient cases went up by 6 per cent. Under this Government, the figure has gone up by 39 per cent. and the number of patients being treated is now at a record level.
1084
The hon. Gentleman said that the first trust threatened Wales and he used the phrase "opt out". We had all that in the Monmouth by-election. That phrase has scared many people in Wales. Opposition Members were more interested in scaring than in caring. I visited Nevill Hall hospital last week, where I found that the people are very satisfied with the national health service in Wales. I reminded people that in 1979, 1983 and 1987, the Labour party said that the health service was not safe in the hands of a Conservative Government. The latest poll shows that 93 per cent. of people are satisfied with the health service.
Of course we must not see hospitals opting out of the national health service; that has never been the intention. I want national health service trusts which mean that management gets closer to the people. The hon. Gentleman said that the trust was unpopular. Since my visit to Nevill Hall, there has been a by-election in a Labour seat in Abergavenny and the seat has been won by the Conservatives. That carries a message to the Labour party.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: The extra money for the health service in Wales is an inflation-busting announcement which will be welcomed in the Principality. It will mean that our very good health service will be able to expand in quality and in quantity.
I welcome the trust status for Pembrokeshire. We have heard the most disgraceful claims, made for electoral reasons, that hospitals will close or basic health facilities will be denied, but the people who have really studied the matter in the interests of the patients—the community health council, the staff and the doctors—have come out in favour of trust status. That proves that the opportunity for trust status means that decisions will be taken locally in the interests of local people.
Mr. Hunt: I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend said about funding and I have cited the revenue figures. Let us look at what happened to capital in the health service under Labour. Whereas capital has increased substantially under this Government, in real terms between 1974–75 and 1979–80 it went down by £11·7 million. No wonder Opposition Members are so silent.
As for trusts, I totally agree with my hon. Friend, but I am not prepared to approve an application for a unit, hospital or an authority to become a national health service trust unless I am satisfied that that will lead to better and more local management and a better range and quality of service to patients, with clinicians involved in key management posts and better patient care.
Mr. Richard Livsey: Does the Secretary of State's announcement on NHS trusts for Pembrokeshire and possible proposals that may come from elsewhere in Wales show that we are to have a two-tier health service—those who get the service and those who get a second-class service? At Nevill Hall hospital, which also serves my constituency, the consultants and staff are opposed to trust status. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has received any proposals from that hospital for NHS trust status and whether he will grant it?
Mr. Hunt: I am concerned that the Liberal party has not welcomed the funding announcement. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) has not said anything at all about it. Members of Parliament always

1085
call for more money, but, when I come to the House and bring record sums with me, I get no welcome. On the trust point, of course we will not have a two-tier health service in Wales. I want every national health service trust to remain within the family of the national health service. I want every national health service trust to provide patient care which will remain free at the point of delivery. I want every national health service trust to remain funded out of general taxation as it is at present. That is the position. That is not a two-tier service; it is a better service.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not well nigh incredible that, after the manifest collapse of command economies in eastern Europe—a collapse that was precipitated by the absence of any market mechanism to demonstrate where resources are needed—the Labour party should continue to oppose the use of market mechanisms within a truly free national health service in order to show precisely where resources can best be used? Did my right hon. Friend, during his triumphantly successful visit to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in my constituency, note the general satisfaction of patients, staff and doctors with the changes that have been brought about, and did he note the utter baselessness of the charges that have been brought by the National Union of Public Employees about changes in that hospital?
Mr. Hunt: I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend said. I enjoyed my visit to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd yesterday. I found a very positive attitude by all the people whom I met and I met many patients. I opened the new foyer, which was built in response to a questionnaire that the hospital had carried out among patients to see what they wanted to be improved.
Mr. Barry Jones: It is here in this newspaper.
Mr. Hunt: No, I am now talking about the truth that my hon. Friend has put forward. That foyer was very much what the public wanted. I provided special additional money for it. The league of friends, the local volunteers with whom I was extremely impressed——
Mr. Jones rose——
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should listen and pay tribute to the league of friends. The league of friends raised £50,000 specifically to improve the foyer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman visits that hospital, too, because he will find general satisfaction. The surgical ward is now scheduled for redecoration. At that hospital, several hundred more operations have been performed than at this time last year.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The Secretary of State mentioned that his aim was to bring management closer to the people. He also announced that East Dyfed health authority would remain and that there would be no West Wales health authority. Is he aware that, as a result of the Government's vindictive and often partisan appointments to health authority boards, there is no representative, and has not been for some time, from the Lanelli area on East Dyfed health authority, yet Llanelli is the only major industrial area in all west Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman now make good his statement about
1086
management being closer to the people and appoint someone from the Llanelli area to the board of East Dyfed health authority?
Mr. Hunt: We have to have the most able people serving on the health authorities. If the hon. Gentleman can provide any names, I am perfectly prepared to consider them—[Interruption.] Well, I shall simply tell the hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Yes, it is pretty disgraceful for the hon. Gentleman not to pay tribute to the fact that, thanks to the Conservatives, there is a new hospital in Llanelli, the Prince Philip hospital.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): The right hon. Gentleman chided the Liberal party for not welcoming his increased expenditure, but will he tell the House the comparable figure for actual expenditure last year, because he compared the figure that he announced today with last year's expenditure plans? Will he use the actual figure for the comparison to see whether that shows an 11 per cent. increase? Does he accept that, whatever he says today, he and his party have lost the political debate over the future of the health service in Wales and that, whether he likes it or not, his announcement today will be seen as extremely divisive? Does he accept that the public see the setting up of national health service trusts as one step away from privatisation? Is not that the case?
Mr. Hunt: No, not at all. I suppose, however, that I have gained something because one Opposition Member actually said the other day that the proposals are halfway to privatisation, so I have managed to move the Opposition halfway. I hope, however, that hon. Members will soon realise that this has nothing to do with privatisation. As far as I am concerned—as far as the Government are concerned—the health service will not be privatised. The hon. Gentleman said that I chided the Liberal party, but I now chide Plaid Cymru for not welcoming my announcement——
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I did welcome the announcement—
Mr. Hunt: No; if the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard he will see that he did not actually say that he welcomed it. He questioned some of the figures. The 11·1 per cent. is an increase on the provision for this year and an 8·2 per cent. increase on the outturn. When the hon. Gentleman bears in mind the fact that inflation is 3·7 per cent. and notes the increase since 1979–80, he will recognise that these are substantial increases which represent 60 per cent. more in real terms.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State may not realise that I regularly read the Pembrokeshire newspapers which, during the past few months, have contained many letters about the trust application, most of which—in fact, the large majority—have been hostile to it. May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an opinion poll that was conducted by the Western Telegraph last August, which showed that 85 per cent. of that newspaper's readers opposed the Pembrokeshire trust application? Why does not the Secretary of State listen to the people of Pembrokeshire? Does he realise that his foolish decision

1087
today will cost the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), his seat at the next election?
Mr. Hunt: I, too, read the Pembrokeshire newspapers and constantly see praise of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "In his own column."]—not only in his own column, but elsewhere in the newspapers. I am keeping a careful watch on the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and I hope that he will recognise that there are polls and polls. When the legislation was going through the House, there was a long debate about whether local polls should be held and the House decided against that. Of course, we must take the right decision for the sake of all the patients in the health service. I sincerely believe that what I have announced today is a move in that direction.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State will know that the opt-out process for schools involved at least a partial, if flawed, consultation process. Is not he ashamed that there is no provision at all in this process for accountability or consultation? Is he aware—he must be—that we are already approaching a general election campaign and that the hospitals that have decided to bow to Welsh Office pressure on this matter are effectively intervening in a partisan way in what will be one of the major issues of that general election campaign? Will he therefore give an undertaking that Nevill Hall, which, despite the right hon. Gentleman's visit, has decided not to seek opt-out trust status, and Morriston hospital and others, which have not set out recklessly on that path, will not face any reprisals from the Conservative party until the election?
Mr. Hunt: There were about 10 wrong assertions in what the hon. Gentleman just said. I cannot possibly deal with them all if I am to allow other people to ask questions. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would stop using the phrase "opt-out". A leaflet is going round, issued by Support the Wales TUC, called "Defend the NHS". It says:
"Opting out. Throw out opt-out."
On the second page it says:
"Street ballots are to be held across West Glamorgan as a means of offering the public the opportunity to show their opposition to opting out."
That sort of ballot is bogus.
There is no opting out, I am prepared to approve a national health service trust only as long as I am satisfied that it will lead to better patient care and that it will remain within the national health service. There is no pressure from the Welsh Office. It is up to the local hospital to reach the decision.
Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that I have opposed his trust proposals for a long time and I believe that the majority of my constituents in North Pembrokeshire are against such a trust. Now that the Secretary of State has made the decision, I wish the trust the best of luck in the years to come in the interests of the people of Pembrokeshire. I compliment the staff, the nurses and everyone involved with Withybush hospital.
Can the Secretary of State give an assurance to the rest of the people in Dyfed that he will not form another trust
1088
until the Pembrokeshire trust has completed a three-year trial run to determine whether the trust status now on offer to the people of Pembrokeshire is a success?
Mr. Hunt: I accept the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said. It was a recognition of the reality. As I understand it, the local community health council in Pembrokeshire decided to support the application for NHS trust status. So did the staff and the consultants. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) talked about a lack of consultation, but there was a clear expression of view.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) talked about the future. I sincerely believe that NHS trusts are the way forward. They bring management closer to the people and the hospital. They allow hospitals to be independent of any outside bureaucracy, to make their own decisions and to have their own budget. That is why I certainly would not block any further applications.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Obviously, any extra money for the health service or any other public service, in Wales or anywhere, is to be welcomed. What we find most difficult to accept is the sanctimonious self-congratulation and the hyping up of the extent of the increase in the money provided. Of course, we know that the figures are bogus. For example, how much of the increase in spending is simply due to the extra number of old people and people getting older who need treatment in this decade compared with the 1970s? That is a significant part of the increase.
Secondly——
Mr. Speaker: One question please.
Mr. Hunt: I have already answered that point. Of course, some of the increase is to take account of increased need. I am arguing against the Labour party's constant accusations that the Conservative Government are making cuts. I analyse the figures on a per capita basis because that is one of the fairest ways. That we spent £170 per capita in 1979 is without challenge. It is the actual cash figure. Taking inflation into account, the figure would be £392 today. It is actually £614. It will be even higher as a result of my announcement today.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: As a result of the increase in funding that the Secretary of State announced today, can he guarantee that this year it will be possible to carry out 1,200 open heart operations in Wales? A commitment was made as long ago as 1984 by his predecessor, yet fewer than 800 operations are being carried out. If GP fund holders are able to buy that or any other service, will the Secretary of State guarantee that in no unit in Wales will it be possible for a consultant surgeon to discriminate against a non-fund holding GP in favour of a GP fund holder who has referred his or her patient to the hospital?
Mr. Hunt: On heart operations, I cannot give the guarantee for which the hon. Gentleman asked, but all district health authorities in Wales are signed up to reduce waiting lists and waiting times in this financial year and to continue that process in succeeding years. The latest evidence shows that activity levels in Wales will be 4 to 5 per cent. up on 1990–91 and that health authorities will meet the "agenda for action" targets for patients waiting more than one year for in-patient care, which is only 19 per cent. but is still too high. We want some improvement. We

1089
want to come close to the target for out-patients waiting more than three months for an appointment, which is 28 per cent.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr.…
Dr. Kim Howells: Kim Howells.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.
Dr. Howells: I am a shy and retiring violet.
Will the provision that has been made for extra funding be able to help the Taff Ely and Rhondda districts of Mid Glamorgan health authority, which is £900,000 overspent, and which faces the closure of wards in the coming winter, including ward 11, a children's ward, which has just been refurbished? The Secretary of State knows very well that that ward will soon be full of children with asthma and bronchial problems. How are they to manage if that money is not made available to them?
Mr. Hunt: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman say that he was retiring?
Dr. Howells: A retiring violet.
Mr. Hunt: On the serious remarks that he made, obviously it is up to the health authority to manage the budget that it receives. He should take up those areas of concern with the chairman of his health authority. However, will he again recognise that we are talking about record levels of funding? Today's announcement means an even higher record than before.
Mr. Peter Hain: The Secretary of State for Wales is busily carving up the health service in Wales like a Christmas turkey. Is he aware that thousands of my constituents are flooding me with signatures on petitions which oppose the opting out of Neath hospital and its registration of an interest to start the application process? Will he arrange for a ballot to be conducted by Neath borough council and let the people of Neath have a voice in whether their hospital should opt out?
Mr. Hunt: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that not long ago he was congratulating me on having announced the new hospital in Neath. He cannot suddenly move from one extreme, which I welcome, to another, which I do not. Or, I suppose he can.
On ballots, I, too, would vote against opting out of the NHS, but that is not what is on the agenda and never has been.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Will this new money—if it is new and is not vired from some other budget—help waiting lists, bearing in mind the fact that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the surgical ward in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd is to be closed for redecoration for six months? That is probably an inefficient way to decorate a ward. The surgical team who face that ward closure have been successful in reducing waiting lists until now, when the money has run out. Will the money help? Which waiting lists will it tackle? One gentleman in my constituency is having to wait 18 months to get on a waiting list. According to my reckoning, there are two
1090
waiting lists. Which one will it stop—the waiting to get on a waiting list or the 18 months' wait that that man has to face when he gets there?
Mr. Hunt: I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Today I announced overall funding for the NHS in Wales. I must admit to the House that I have put much more money into the NHS than was perhaps originally expected because I believe that that, and better patient care, are among my highest priorities as Secretary of State. I was determined to fulfil that obligation with the announcement. Having secured those additional funds, I must sit down and work out how to allocate them between health authorities. The hon. Gentleman will know about the extra millions of pounds that we have put into the waiting lists initiative. However, the purpose of the funding package that I announced is to reduce waiting times throughout Wales.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the surest way to acquire a new hospital is to cause a by-election? Will he also agree that he still has a good deal of arguing to do to convince the people of Wales that the creation of a large number of hospital trusts is motivated by patients' interests rather than by his political beliefs?
Mr. Hunt: I wonder whether there is something I should know as to why the hon. and learned Gentleman is so favourably disposed towards by-elections. We would rise to the occasion with Jeanie France Heyhurst if he decided to step down. There would be an extremely good by-election campaign.
On national health trusts, I will approve an application only provided that the hospital, the unit and the authority will remain within the family of the NHS. There is no dogma here. I am proud of my commitment to the health service, which is evidenced by the record level of resources that we have announced today.
Dr. John Marek: I can well believe that the national health service needs more money in Wales because there are many more administrators, computer operators and accountants in the service. No doubt the opted-out trusts will ensure that their board members pay themselves inflated salaries. Nevertheless, I welcome the extra money, if it is genuinely new money and is not taken from some other budget. What is the difference between the coming year, 1992, and 1987, 1983 and 1979, when more money was promised by the Conservative party and promises were made, only to be cruelly withdrawn after the elections in those years?
Mr. Hunt: There was just one little thing that the hon. Gentleman left out—to welcome the fact that, thanks to the Conservative Government, Wrexham Maelor hospital was built. That is something of which we are very proud.
On funding, of course this is extra cash for the NHS. The money will be allocated to the health authorities as soon as I am able to make further announcements. It will be greatly to the benefit of the health service and to patients. We have published a patients charter, we believe in better patient care, and what I have announced will greatly assist in bringing about that objective.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the 11·1 per cent. increase not only becomes the 8·2 per cent. that he admitted to

1091
when it is measured against expenditure, but becomes about 2 per cent. when measured against the real rate of inflation within the NHS and disappears altogether when care in the community is taken into account?
On an important constitutional point—I hope that he will take this seriously—whatever happens after the election we are in the dying months of this Parliament. There is a bitter doctrinal argument between the parties on trust status. Will he give an assurance that, whatever happens in present consultations on further trusts—I shall avoid the emotive term "opt-out"—and whatever their conclusion, he will leave it so that the Government appointed after the election can make a decision about whether there will be more trusts?
Mr. Hunt: Since 1979–80 funding for the NHS has increased in real terms by 60 per cent. That is a marvellous statistic and one which I shall use during the next general election.
Mr. Win Griffiths: That is not in real terms.
Mr. Hunt: No, it is a real-terms increase of 60 per cent. When the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was in government, funding increased by nowhere near that figure and capital spending decreased.
On trusts, we do not hear as much opposition in England to NHS trusts now. It has gone rather quiet because trusts have been rather successful. In Wirral the local Labour party first opposed every NHS application—that was at the behest of the unions, which were equally opposing them. Now throughout Wirral one will find general approval of trusts and they are nowhere near the party political football that the Labour party in Wales is still trying to suggest.
Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Secretary of State realise that this is not so much a statement as a press release? Does he not know that the increase about which he told us is inadequate to meet the needs, especially with the increasing numbers of the elderly in our population, and year after year falls back compared with all comparable countries? Why does so much money go on gimmicks, such as the £203,000 on his so-called charter for health in Wales, with cash going to a firm in Northampton and an appalling and unproductive paper chase in this so-called market in care?
Cannot the Secretary of State understand the message from the 93 per cent. of people in Wales who are satisfied with the NHS and do not want the muddle and meddle of his trusts and opt-out policy? What is unpopular is the proposal to take the health service in Pembrokeshire into
1092
a trust. It is as unpopular in Pembrokeshire as is the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), the obsessed architect of all that we despise about Conservative policies on health in Wales.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the Conservatives broke the consensus on health in Wales and that the trust idea will and must be scrapped—if not by him, by the people of Wales at the general election?
Mr. Hunt: There was some sweet music among the discordant notes. In previous health service debates the hon. Gentleman has come to the Dispatch Box and said that there have been cuts in the health service and there was great dissatisfaction in Wales with the Conservatives. Now is a wonderful moment. He has come to the Dispatch Box and said that 93 per cent. of the people in Wales are satisfied with the Conservative administration of the health service.
Mr. Michael: No, I did not say that.
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman did not include the words, "Conservative administration or. He said that 93 per cent. were satisfied with the national health service in Wales. I welcome that.
On the hon. Gentleman's discordant notes, I want to ensure that the record levels of funding now announced are targeted in the best possible way for the patients. I want to see a health service that is better managed and where the staff are paid properly.
I have one last fact and statistic for the House. When Labour was last in power, the pay of nurses, midwives and health visitors fell in real terms by 21·1 per cent. and of hospital doctors and dentists by 9·9 per cent. Under this Government, from 1979 to 1991 pay has increased for nurses, midwives and health visitors by 48·7 per cent. and for hospital doctors and dentists by 28·7 per cent. No wonder the hon. Gentleman says that the Conservative Government are running the health service well. We are determined to do even better and my announcement today will enable us to do so.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

BROADCASTING
That the draft Broadcasting (Programme Contractors' Additional Payments) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.

Welsh Development Agency Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.52 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill, in particular clause 1, is to increase the statutory financial limit for the Welsh Development Agency from the present level of £700 million to £950 million. The limit was last raised by the Welsh Development Agency Act 1988, and present forecasts suggest that the limit will be reached during 1992–93. Therefore, it is necessary to raise the limit now, so as not to inhibit the agency's contribution to the redevelopment of the Welsh economy.
Under section 18 of the Welsh Development Act 1975, a number of items count towards the financial limit. First, there are the agency's general external borrowings, mainly from the national loans fund. Secondly, there are agency and Treasury guarantees. Thirdly, there are overseas borrowings from, for example, the European Coal and Steel Community. The largest element, however, comprises the grant in aid, less administrative expenses, together with public dividend capital issues, both of which I make available annually to the agency.
It is customary when seeking parliamentary approval for increasing a financial limit to set a figure which will last for about five years. It is not customary to set it too high because this occasion gives us an opportunity to review the agency's activities and, in effect, have another debate on Welsh matters.
I see the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) in his seat. A group of English Members who were leaving the Chamber said to me, "You don't need a ruddy Welsh Assembly—you've turned this Parliament into a Welsh Parliament". This week, we have had a debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, an announcement on the health service in Wales and now a debate on the WDA, and next Monday we have Welsh questions.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State has tempted me to my feet, and I apologise for my voice. Does he agree that, if this is to be seen as a Welsh Parliament, we can have votes on matters relating to Wales restricted to Welsh Members?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should not be so insular. I was merely reporting what was said to me; I did not give my views.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What are they?
Mr. Hunt: I do not think that this has become a Welsh Parliament, but it is the mother of Parliaments. Hon. Gentlemen can intervene on any aspect of the agency's affairs, and I am happy to respond to any questions.
As I said, it is customary to cover a five-year period, so I propose that the limit should be £950 million. I should add, however, that this is a purely technical measure, with no implications for spending or policy decisions in future years. Such decisions will be taken in the normal way.
The agency's main aims are to further the economic development of Wales, to enhance the international competitiveness of Welsh business and to improve the environment of Wales. It pursues its objectives through a wide range of activities. They include the provision of modern factories and workshops, the promotion of inward
1094
investment and new technology, the provision of business advice and venture capital, land reclamation and, increasingly, urban renewal and environmental improvement. The goal is a dynamic, self-sustaining, private sector economy in Wales.
In recent years, we have seen the emergence of a new Wales—the transformation of our country. The process is not yet complete, but the changes have been profound and will be of lasting significance—certainly for Wales, but also more widely. As racently as 1979, Wales was dominated by declining nationalised industries. The inevitable closures saw unemployment rise from 67,000 in 1979 to 167,000 by 1986—more than doubling the rate of unemployment to 14 per cent. In parts of industrial Wales, people were faced with a stark legacy from their industrial past: high unemployment, a declining population, industrial dereliction and environmental pollution.
There has now been a dramatic improvement. Unemployment fell rapidly—it declined for 47 consecutive months—until the recent recessionary pressures in the United Kingdom economy took effect. Between 1985 and 1989, seasonally adjusted employment halved. The average rate of unemployment in Wales is now 9·2 per cent. I am pleased that unemployment in Wales fell again last month, but I remain to be convinced that we have moved into that trend again—I greatly hope so. There has been much growth in employment opportunities in the service sector as well as manufacturing.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State is about to say that the WDA has been successful in attracting inward investment into the traditionally industrial parts of Wales, especially the south-east and north-east. I concur with that view. Will he confirm that it is the agency's remit to attract inward investment to areas that still have large pockets of unemployment, such as Holyhead and Fishguard, and that it is considering that matter carefully?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, I do so confirm. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State kindly responded to a call that I received from a meeting in Anglesey, at which the hon. Gentleman was present, to appoint a supremo—someone to co-ordinate overall activity—to regenerate the economy of Anglesey. I am delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend that the WDA is spearheading a great deal of activity, and I am sure that he will wish to enlarge on those points later in the debate.
The index of output of manufacturing industries in Wales showed between 1985 and 1989 growth of over 30 per cent., compared with 15 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. The numbers of firms in Wales in production industry, as shown by VAT registrations, rose by 64 per cent. in the same period, which is more than twice the United Kingdom average. The economy has diversified and is more flexible and robust, with tremendous potential for growth.
Those achievements represent a great tribute to the resilience and strength of the Welsh people. There is no doubt that Government policies in Wales and the work of Government Departments and agencies, such as the WDA, have played a crucial role, and continue to do so. Although I recognise the continuing difficulties, the Welsh economy is better placed than ever before to move forward to renewed growth.
I come to the contribution made by the WDA. It has been necessary to ensure that the agency is properly

1095
funded to do the job. Since we came to office in 1979, the total gross expenditure of the Welsh Development Agency, at today's prices, has just gone through the £1 billion barrier. Those resources have been used to tremendous effect. In the last year alone, for example, the agency's direct factory-building programme provided an additional 1·2 million sq. ft. of industrial and commercial floor space. When fully let, that will provide space for about 3,500 jobs.
Mr. Win Griffiths: The Secretary of State speaks of the role of the WDA as a factory builder and, in that context, as a landlord. Will he ask the WDA to review its policy of selling off large tracts of its factories to major real estate agents rather than directly to the tenants? Is he aware that many tenants have been dissatisfied to find that the leases they held from the WDA have been sold to companies that have no connection with Wales and without them having been given the opportunity to buy them for themselves? Will he persuade the WDA to do otherwise?
Mr. Hunt: The WDA currently holds about 2,000 factories. Over 40,000 people are employed in them, so it is an important landlord, as the hon. Gentleman points out. In the last five years, the agency has conducted programme of sales. It would be wrong for me to restrict the market, because the agency has raised more than £80 million from factory sales to private sector investors and individual tenants, and has reinvested the proceeds in Wales.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about a budget of perhaps £166 million, but in the coming three years the grant in aid from the Welsh Office will drop from £80 million to £60 million. The maintenance of the budget depends on two forecasts—a huge hike in factory rents being forced on many tenants and a large sale of factory space. If one or both of those fails to occur on the scale projected, may we be assured that the Government will make up the difference to maintain the overall budget of the WDA?
Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman need only look at the record to see the facts. One must, of course, take into account current market conditions, and I have to be satisfied that the projections given to me by the WDA for sales are realistic. I am so satisfied. I am able to speak for next year, and I have made the position for next year absolutely clear. We have projected figures for the year after that, and the following year. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at our record and to recognise that my predecessor and I have brought the budget of the WDA to a record level in real terms.
The right hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) must not forget that there are differing views on this issue on the Opposition Benches. Many hon. Members would like to see the WDA become less of a landlord and to sell on the open market much of its factory space.
Mr. Rowlands: And individual tenants?
Mr. Hunt: Yes, of course that includes individual tenants.
Mr. Rowlands rose——
Mr. Hunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, when he can expand on the point he wishes to make.
Mr. Rowlands: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? The whole budget is predicated on the forecast of the sale of factory space. That will involve the sale this year of 74,000 sq m of factory space. To maintain the budget, that will have to rise to 300,000 sq m in the next two years. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that, may we have an assurance that any shortfall in the WDA budget will be made good by the Welsh Office?
Mr. Hunt: In putting together the budget, I must be satisfied that what are, after all, indicative figures are realistic and reasonable estimates. I am satisfied that they are realistic for next year, so the hon. Gentleman's point does not arise—[Interruption.] Although he does not think that they are realistic estimates, I have satisfied myself that they are. The figures have been given to me by the WDA.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. He should be willing to admit that he tells the WDA what sort of target it must reach for reinvestment as a result of factory sales. We are referring to an idea that has come not from the agency, but from the Treasury and the Welsh Office.
Mr. Hunt: I put up with a lot from the hon. Gentleman, but the accusation that I am misleading the House is totally unacceptable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I would not expect the hon. Gentleman to apologise——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I should tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that Mr. Speaker has often reminded the House that to accuse an hon. Member or a Minister of misleading the House is unparliamentary and should not happen. Perhaps he will withdraw the remark or qualify it.
Mr. Morgan: I am terribly sorry if I have offended the Secretary of State by using an unparliamentary expression. I am sure that there was no intention on his part to mislead the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did not ask me to withdraw but to rephrase what I said, in such a way that it does not offend parliamentary canons.
The problem remains the same. The Secretary of State is saying that the Welsh Development Agency has given him a set of facts, when I know it to be the other way round—that he has told the WDA to raise a set amount of money from these sales.
Mr. Hunt: I do not know what to say to that. I think I will ignore the whole thing. [Interruption.]Perhaps hon. Members will get a chance to refer to that issue later, when I can intervene, but I am anxious to deal with some key points without taking up too much time, because many other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Welsh Development International—the WDA's inward investment arm, of which we can be justifiably proud—has, among its recent successes, helped Wales to secure huge investments by companies such as Toyota, Bosch, British Airways, Sony and Dow Corning. Those five projects alone promise investment of nearly £680 million in the Principality.
There are now well over 300 overseas manufacturing companies in Wales, including 150 from Europe, 140 from

1097
North America and over 40 from Japan. Last year, 142 projects were secured, and they are expected to generate £639 million worth of capital expenditure and create or safeguard nearly 16,000 jobs.
I reckon that to be a pretty marvellous achievement. Although some people say that I take the credit, on every possible occasion I make it clear where the credit belongs, and it belongs primarily to the work force of Wales. I am just one who uses the opportunity given to me, by the quality of the work force, to sell that asset of Wales, and I shall continue to do so. Indeed, without the Welsh work force, we would not have achieved those figures. We would not have those figures without the Welsh Development Agency, either. My predecessor set an excellent example in winning investment, and I hope that I am living up to his reputation. Indeed, I am proud to have some facts to announce.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hunt: I am coming to my peroration, but I shall give way.
Dr. Howells: I welcome those enormous achievements, and the WDA as well as the Welsh people can be proud of them. However, may I ask a simple question: how much did it cost to secure those projects?
Mr. Hunt: I shall let the hon. Gentleman have a detailed breakdown of the estimated cost of each project. I shall also place a copy in the Library. There are a number of component parts. For instance, we had tremendous co-operation in securing the investment with British Airways from the local authorities and from further and higher education colleges. That is extremely important. I shall try to assess the cost, but I believe that the projects have been extremely worth while, and a very good investment.
As I said, 142 projects were secured last year, which was an all-time record. The evidence of those achievements is to be seen throughout Wales, in the form of modern manufacturing and business premises. Every effort will continue to be made to attract internationally mobile projects and increase the quality of inward investment throughout Wales.
Against that all-time record of 142 projects, I was told just a few hours ago that already this year 165 projects have been secured, promising capital expenditure of £830 million and more than 15,500 new or safeguarded jobs. I pay tribute to all those concerned in helping us to secure that investment. That includes hon. Members on both sides of the House as well as the Welsh work force, the WDA, local authorities and all the other crucial members of our partnership, in particular—following recent announcements—the Development Board for Rural Wales.
I am also acutely aware that there is enormous development potential among Wales' indigenous companies. The agency's business services have a key role in supporting those companies and helping them to grow, where such support is not available from the private sector.
One of the most vital areas is in doing business in Europe. Wales is still essentially a small-firms economy:
1098
over 90 per cent. of all manufacturing plants in Wales employ fewer than 100 people. That is both a strength and a vulnerability—a strength because it represents potential for growth, and a vulnerability because small firms often lack the management and financial resources necessary to do business overseas, or on a European basis, yet increasingly that is exactly what is required—to meet the competition and take advantage of the opportunities of the single market.
I have therefore given a high priority to developing business links with other European regions, particularly the "four motors"—the regions of Baden-Wurttemberg, Catalonia, Lombardy and Rhone-Alpes. The WDA has an important role to play in developing those links, particularly in helping to foster joint ventures and other business co-operation between smaller firms in Wales and Europe.
Last year, the agency also hosted the "Europartenariat", which is Europe's forum for small businesses. It attracted 1,300 people from 600 different companies from 17 European countries.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I thank the Secretary of State and his inspector for the public inquiry that was held in my constituency near the empty site of the former Felindre tin plate works, which the WDA and British Steel have been trying to sell for some time. The decision prevents West Glamorgan county council from establishing a gipsy site adjacent to one of the most marketable sites in Britain. Even though I am sure that it is vital that those people are housed properly and appropriate sites are found for them, I am sure that the decision is correct and will enable the WDA and British Steel to market the site adjacent to the M4. Hopefully, the Welsh Office will be able to assist a new inward investor to use that site, which has been empty for so long——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief.
Mr. Hunt: I do not wish to come between the hon. Gentleman and his Labour-controlled county council, but I thank him for his remarks. As he said, appropriate sites will have to be found.
We are determined to disseminate information as widely as possible. European information centres have now been opened in Mold and Cardiff to provide information on European Community legislation and policies, and on the legal requirements for tendering, grants, funding, training needs and so on. More than 100 companies a month use the service. It is most important for the future of Wales that we maintain that approach to Europe. As part of that, the WDA will open an office in Brussels in the near future.
On the agency's responsibilities for environmental matters, the Government have provided the WDA with the resources to commit some £220 million—at today's prices—to reclaiming derelict land in Wales. More than 9,500 acres of previously derelict land have been brought back into productive use in one of the largest and most sustained programmes of its kind in Europe.
As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will know, I was delighted to approve a scheme last year for work to begin on what I believe is western Europe's largest land reclamation scheme—the clearance of 900 acres of land at east Merthyr, which will provide new land for new industry, housing, and local

1099
amenities. In the 1990s, business success will depend on the ability to recruit and retain skilled employees. Those employees will be attracted to an area with a first-class environment for business, leisure and family life. That is our objective for Wales.
The WDA can be proud of the role that it has played to date in the remarkable transformation of the Welsh economy and industrial landscape. I pay tribute to the staff of the agency, past and present, for all their efforts, to the work of past and present chairmen and chief executives of the agency, and to my own predecessors as Secretary of State. However, many challenges still face us and it would be wrong to suppose that the task is complete, or that we can yet relax our efforts. We must therefore look to the future.
To meet the challenges, I am delighted to have the support, knowledge and expertise of the present board of the WDA and of its chairman. The chairman and the present team are continuing the record of outstanding achievement. To add a new dimension and considerable experience of the world of international business and commerce, I am delighted to take this opportunity to announce today a new appointment to the board, Dr. Pamela Kirby. Dr. Kirby will be the first woman board member of the Welsh Development Agency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. She has strong family connections with west Wales and is the managing director of one of the fastest growing pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom, Astra Pharmaceuticals. Her experience and knowledge of the world of international business and commerce will enable her to make an important contribution to the work of the WDA. I greatly welcome the way in which that appointment has been received by the House.
For the immediate future, hon. Members will be aware that I will next year be providing more money for the WDA. The agency's gross budget is to be increased by £13·5 million to more than £166 million, the highest ever in cash and real terms. The funding will allow the WDA to build on its success in attracting inward investment to Wales. The agency will now be able to continue with a major programme of factory building in those areas of Wales where private sector provision is presently inadequate. Increasingly, the agency will concentrate on the preparation of sites and infrastructure, and on encouraging private sector investment in Wales, particularly through joint ventures.
Under the "Welsh property venture", more than half a million square feet of business accommodation has been secured in the first year of operation. For every £1 that the agency invested, more than £4 of private sector investment was secured for Wales.
As the agency increases its focus on the revitalisation of rural and urban communities, I also intend that it should make an even greater contribution to environmental improvement and urban renewal. In urban districts, under the programme "urban development in Wales", the WDA is working closely with local authorities and the private sector. Such schemes are under way in Llanelli, Ebbw Vale, Holyhead, the Cynon valley, Rhyl and Milford Haven. Those schemes are helping to create the right environment for living and working.
The WDA will also continue to concentrate on its rural districts, which have particular problems. The agency's rural property programme is designed to improve the
1100
viability and vitality of rural areas and has already highlighted 15 key rural towns and communities for action.
Like every non-departmental public organisation, the WDA is subject to a financial management and policy review at least every five years, in accordance with Government guidelines. That is a thorough, root-and-branch review to test the need for its continuing role and the effectiveness of its operations. That review is currently in hand for the WDA, and I look forward to the study with great interest. It will inform and shape future programmes.
I greatly welcome the way in which a more positive partnership is evolving as those programmes develop. That relationship is often led by the WDA, and includes local authorities. I shall do everything I can to encourage that partnership approach, because I believe that it gives Wales a significant edge.
We must build on those successes. The agency can and will play a role as an instrument of the Government's industrial and economic policy in Wales, and do so with distinction. I urge the House to support the Bill so that the agency can continue its fine work and achieve the objectives that the Government have set.
5.24 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: The Secretary of State largely overlooked the recent job losses due to, for example, the closure of the Brymbo steelworks in Clwyd. There were also job losses at Austin Taylor in Gwynedd, Inmos in Gwent and AB Electronics in mid Glamorgan and the closure of Penallta colliery. It will put the debate in context if I say that unemployment in mid Glamorgan puts the county in the top 10 of the worst places in Great Britain, with nearly 25,000 people on the dole. There are more than 13,500 unemployed people in Clwyd county and more than 10,000 in the county of Gwynedd. In south Glamorgan, nearly 19,000 people are out of work.
Why has the Secretary of State no strategy and no plans to safeguard what remains of Wales's manufacturing base? Why has he been so laggardly in responding to the loss of apprenticeships? Why has he neglected the transport infrastructure? Why has he overlooked the decline of the construction industry? Where are the jobs to take the place of the thousands of coal jobs that have been lost? Where are the well-paid permanent jobs for those who have been displaced from the steel industry?
Dr. John Marek: I apologise to my hon. Friend for butting in on him, but the position is even worse. He mentioned Brymbo. When jobs were lost there, Brymbo was making a profit, and had done so for the last 20 years of its existence until it was closed last year. Since then, the Welsh Office has not been able to do anything about it. The land is lying idle, the people who lost their jobs have not been able to obtain new ones, and it is a sorry mess. I hope that the increase in the borrowing limit will enable the WDA to do something for my constituents.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has fought hard on the Brymbo issue, and was right to say that it is a sorry mess. It was a shabby episode; the locality was treated badly and its residents have yet to receive justice. I will support my hon. Friend in his efforts on behalf of the people of Brymbo.
I thought that the Secretary of State was a shade complacent. On 26 June 1975, on the Second Reading of

1101
the original legislation, the Welsh Development Agency Bill, the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) and for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) voted against it, as did the Minister of State at the Welsh Office and Nicholas Edwards. The record shows that the Minister of State was in a fierce mood that day. He thundered: "This is socialism". The evidence shows that, even then, the bardic steamroller was inching forward through debates.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): With regard to what I said in 1975 about the original legislation to establish the Welsh Development Agency, is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the first action that the Government took when they came into office was to change the role of the WDA, which is now a very different agency from the one that it was? That accounts for its current great success.
Mr. Jones: I read every word of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and it was rabid. If he were to re-read it, he would blush to his roots.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his typical courtesy. While he is on the subject of consistency, will he say where he stood on the issue of Britain's membership of the European Community during those years?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is greatly respected and has contributed greatly to our debates over many years, and I shall be sorry to see him standing down at the general election. However, I think that his intervention might be just a little wide of the wide subject under discussion. It is his King Charles's head, and he shall have it; nobody can take it away from him.
I was about to say before I was so charmingly intervened upon—as only an old Etonian can—that today's debate can take place only because the last Labour Government created the Welsh Development Agency. It should be put on record that the Administration of Mr. Harold Wilson enacted the legislation that created the agency. It was far-sighted, practical, caring legislation. Mr. Wilson's objective, and that of his then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), was to give Wales a fresh start.
As Premier in a previous Administration, Mr. Wilson created the Department of State which is the Welsh Office. Mr. Wilson appointed the first Secretary of State for Wales, the great Mr. Jim Griffiths, the former Member for Llanelli. Mr. Wilson's Labour Government for the first time endowed the Welsh Office with the real economic and industrial power that it needed. That power was to be used for the people of Wales, and to make good its scarred and poisoned landscapes.
I shall mention the novels that relate to Wales: The Rape of the Fair Country, How Green Was My Valley and the play, "The Corn is Green". Those titles are famous, evocative and emotional. They may be inspiring as fictional chronicles of our unfolding social and economic history, but those who, in yesteryear, amassed fortunes from coal, iron, steel and slate rarely ploughed back the profits that sweat and blood had created. That is why we needed a Welsh Development Agency, and I stress that it was a Labour Government who gave it to Wales.
1102
The Bill restores the financial limit to the real value that it achieved after the last increase in 1988. When we had the previous debate on the Bill in January 1988, the economic situation was different. Unemployment was falling, the WDA factory vacancies were low and business optimism was high. But today the Welsh economy is in the depths of the second Conservative recession in 12 years. Unemployment is more than 40 per cent. higher than it was 12 months ago, output is down by 5·4 per cent. and bankruptcies are up 88 per cent. on last year with 1,317 bankruptcies and insolvencies in Wales in the first nine months of this year alone. That is a serious situation. The number of vacant agency factory units is up. Today in south and north Wales business men who have given a lifetime's service to job creation are now being ruined. Their businesses are going to the wall; they are being destroyed by the Government's policies.
I think that the Secretary of State will agree that the WDA has proved an outstanding success. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has provided a platform for economic regeneration in Wales in partnership with our local authorities. I will celebrate with the right hon. Gentleman the location of Sharp and Toyota in my constituency, Bosch in south Glamorgan and the considerable extension of Sony in Bridgend, which I visited with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). We went there first a matter of days before the Prime Minister and were given a fine reception in a fine industrial location.
New challenges are opening up for Wales. The single market after 1992 will make product market competition stiffer, particularly for peripheral regions of Europe such as Wales where many firms are ill equipped to meet the challenge ahead. The new product markets are increasingly competitive and—I emphasise—quality conscious. There is growing competition for inward investment from other parts of the United Kingdom, and particularly from eastern Europe. There is also a vital need for direction from the Welsh Office and a new partnership approach between Government and industry.
The Secretary of State mentioned inward investment. In the inward investment battles of the 1990s, Wales will not be able to compete with eastern Europe on labour costs. With or without the efforts of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), eastern Europe will provide a range of inward investment opportunities that may be lost to Wales. Nor should we wish to compete in the new Europe on the basis of paying poverty wages to attract low skill and low technology employment. That is not the route to a stable and dynamic Welsh economy. Manufacturing processes and the competitive markets of Europe require total quality, flexibility and innovation. Such skills do not come from poverty pay; they require the efficient use of labour and, above all, quality training.
As British Airways proved, adequate skilled labour and training is a chief concern of the new generation of inward investors. On that we can agree. It is imperative that Welsh Development International communicates the skill requirements of likely inward investors to our training and enterprise councils and our colleges. That is clearly done by British Airways, but it must be common practice in the 1990s.
I am concerned that the proposals in the Further and Higher Education Bill may well reduce the ability to co-ordinate such responses to the needs of inward investors. I have had consultations with some local

1103
education authorities and some leading councillors in south Wales and that is what they tell me. The Welsh Office and the agency must take that on board.
The effect of the recession on our manufacturing industry has been pointed out in a recent report by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I understand from him that the Hoover apprenticeship scheme trained some 24 apprentices a year in its heyday. This year, for the first time in 48 years, Hoover will not recruit one apprentice. In Clwyd in my constituency, British Aerospace at Broughton has virtually halted its apprentice scheme this autumn. This year it has taken on only 12 clerical apprentices; it usually takes on 70 or more trainee tradesmen, but that is not the case this autumn. British Aerospace in Clwyd, with more than 4,500 employees, is, arguably, the largest reservoir of skills in northern Britain, certainly in Wales, but we have there the virtual rundown of a necessary resource for Wales, which must make its way in the next century and prepare now for the competition to come.
The National Audit Office report raises a number of crucial questions not only about the agency but about the Welsh Office and regional selective assistance. Successive Conservative Welsh Office Ministers have placed great emphasis on estimates of future jobs for political as well as other reasons. Wales has done extraordinarily well in creating new jobs. But now we need to discover why there has been such a shortfall in jobs created compared with the projections. I hope that when the Minister replies he will attempt to answer that question. It must be addressed. What does the Secretary of State intend to do with regard to the National Audit Office's key recommendation that the WDA's monitoring techniques should be improved so that its programmes can be properly evaluated?
Reference has been made to innovation and technology. That is the seed corn for the high added value and high skill employment that Wales must foster in the 1990s. The WDA needs more support from the Welsh Office to increase the Welsh take-up of the United Kingdom and the Common Market funds for research, development, innovation and technology transfer. It is fair to say that so far Wales has fared poorly in attracting such funds. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has made some observations on that matter.
We must also expand ventures such as the Imperial science park. That joint venture between Imperial college, London, the agency and Newport borough council must be applauded. It is a first-rate development which is good for Wales. It will become one of the leading research and development parks in the United Kingdom.
I have set out the Labour party's agenda for the agency and I have referred to the Welsh economy, but before I conclude I pose the question: what would a fourth Conservative term mean for Wales? [HON. MEMBERS: "Another recession."] My right hon. and hon. Friends are right. It would mean a third recession for the Welsh economy. The Conservatives have failed to address the key supply side issues, failed to deliver internationally competitive standards of education and training, and starved business of investment through high interest rates.
Another Conservative Administration would mean creeping privatisation for the Welsh Development Agency. If the Conservatives were to win again—I do not think that they will—the WDA could be broken up, on the lines of Scottish Enterprise. Alternatively, the agency's property revenue function, which represents a major source of its
1104
revenue, might be hived off. The House may remember that when a similar proposal was made by the agency's west Wales office, it led to the resignation of senior officials at that office.
The Conservatives' record is a bad record. When the general election takes place, Labour will be victorious. A Labour Government will create a successful, productive, and modern economy. Only a Labour victory will endow Wales with an economy capable of meeting the fierce competition of the next century.
5.40 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) rightly chastised the Government for their economic record. It is sad that, after 10 years of Conservative rule, Wales is the poorest economic region in Britain. That was not the case in 1979. Whatever Conservative Administrations have tried, they have been unable to improve relatively the wealth of the Welsh economy.
We welcome the Bill, because it is quite an achievement for the Welsh Development Agency to have survived the free market mania that held sway between 1979 and 1991 and the ideological zeal of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who vehemently opposed the WDA originally. That is a tribute also to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who helped to build that durable institution, as well as the Land Authority for Wales. Both survived the Thatcherite blitz of the 1980s.
The Secretary of state that the aim was to achieve a self-sustaining private sector. I hope not, because I cannot identify any in the modern industrial world. France does not have a self-sustaining private sector economy, and nor does Germany or Japan. the agency's purpose is to fill the gaps that the private sector cannot fill. That is why we need interventionism, and why it is good that the WDA has survived.
The agency will have to take a different tack in the 1990s in addressing itself and the Welsh Office to the problems that Wales and the Welsh economy will face in the 1990s—which will be different from those of the 1980s.
Two factors have affected, and will continue to affect, the Welsh economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside alluded to the collapse of the Soviet empire. We must acknowledge that the centre of gravity in Europe is moving further east. We have always been to the west of the centre of power—certainly so far as Brussels is concerned—but that will move further east. It is all very well for members of Plaid Cymru especially to salivate every time Baden-Wurttemberg is mentioned, but it could become a big element. Investment from that source may well go to east Germany, Czechoslovakia, and parts of the former Soviet bloc.
It is fashionable to condemn the old command economies of eastern Europe—but when the dust has settled, it may be realised that considerable basic engineering skills are available in east Germany and Czechoslovakia. I would like comparisions made of the number of qualified engineers in Czechoslovakia and Wales. I hope that Wales will come out of them quite well, but I have doubts.
Those skills can be found also in other parts of eastern Europe. We must not get carried away with the idea that the Soviet economy was unable to produce people trained

1105
in production. They will be employed in future, and some investment will go to those eastern states unless we are careful. The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) has already spotted that; having already made a foray into Baden-Wurttemberg, he is now to work for Baden-Wurttemberg in trying to move investment away from this island to eastern Europe.
This is not the occasion to debate the move towards European union, but if that is to occur, there is a great danger that Wales will become the South Dakota of the new union. If the United Kingdom is locked into currencies that it cannot change, and unable to control interest rates and to operate budget deficits, and if it cannot subsidise its industry, this country and others on the periphery—we will be more so in future—will suffer from the concentration in the centre.
Mr. Keith Raffan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if Britain does not sign up to European monetary union and is outside the inner currency circle, there will be pressure on many of the overseas companies that have located in Wales to relocate elsewhere in Europe—and that Wales would then lose many of the benefits achieved by the WDA over the past 10 years?
Mr. Davies: I did not intend to provoke the hon. Gentleman, but without massive transfers of resources from the centre to areas such as Wales, we will suffer from the move towards European union. I see no sign of them by way of an enhanced regional policy in Brussels. If there are such transfers, my fear is that they will go to southern European countries, which can make a case for them in terms of income per head, unemployment, and their domestic economies. Portugal, Spain, southern Italy and Greece could get money—but where would that leave Britain?
I doubt that the Germans would be prepared to use their public money to provide such transfers, which we must have if Wales is not to become the South Dakota or Oklahoma of the united states of Europe, the federal union, or whatever it is to be called.
We are all agreed that the WDA's inward investment arm has worked well, and that operation must be continued and nurtured. I am concerned, however—this is not meant as a criticism of the people who run the agency—that the agency is leaning too far towards property interests. It is natural for the WDA to have an involvement in property, because to some extent it grew out of the land reclamation units of the Welsh Office. It is natural also that the WDA should be concerned, as it is, with clearing derelict land and constructing new buildings on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) gave the public expenditure figures. The Government's hope is that, by selling off property and generating property income, they can be relieved of putting grant-in-aid money into the WDA. However, the 1980s are over, and the 1990s will not be about property debt, and using property development to increase land values. Ski slopes, marinas, and golf clubs are all very nice—but they will not attract the kind of investment needed in the 1990s.
1106
To do that, Wales must create new skills. Whatever may be the value of the pound or ecu, if Wales cannot offer the necessary engineering skills, it will not attract inward investment. Wales is falling down on skills. It does not have the engineering, technological and scientific skills that it should to attract investment. Ministers know that very well.
Our education system is no longer geared to produce the engineering, technological and scientific elite that we need. It is geared to produce the semi-skilled and, indeed, unskilled work force who are required in many large sectors of the economy, especially the service sector. Most jobs in the service sector are unskilled, and a specialised education system is not needed to produce them.
We cannot produce the elite engineering skills possessed by Japan, Germany and, to an extent, France. To produce such skills, we need a system that is still concerned with diligence, discipline and attention to detail. The Japanese have done so well not because of management skills but because their engineers are so good. Engineering demands diligence, scientific skills and attention to detail.
I pay tribute to the West Wales training and enterprise council, which appreciates the need to create manufacturing skills. It is, however, having to do its work against a background of 10 years in which nothing was done, and despite the collapse of much of our industry. If an area contains only service industries, where can people be trained to become engineers and technologists? They can only hope to be employed by McDonalds, B and Q or Great Mills. The TECs do what they can, but they have not the hinterland or the infrastructure that would enable them to carry out their job properly.
Perhaps the WDA should now consider itself the arm of the Welsh economy that tries to produce and use money to create an elite in science, technology and engineering, and thus benefit the Welsh economy. I do not know whether that can be done, however. At one time, the California and Massachusetts institutes of technology were the great institutions or the world, but, for all I know, the great institutions of production and engineering may now be in Japan. Why cannot the WDA involve itself more with schools in Wales? Why cannot it find the youngsters of both sexes who have an aptitude for engineering and science, and use Government money to encourage them—perhaps even send them to Japan to be trained? We cannot train them here.
We need an interventionist agency. We may criticise the French ecoles for being elitist and superior, but they have been remarkably successful in creating a technical and scientific work force, quite apart from administrators and civil servants. It will take time, but perhaps the WDA will be able to create the skills without which we cannot develop the Welsh economy, regardless of our political views.
Those are the challenges for the 1990s, rather than building or property ventures or even the clearing of land. If we have no skilled work force, the investment will not come, whatever currency union we may belong to.
5.53 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, this debate follows a month in which the unemployment figures fell in Wales. That is no small achievement, and it deserves to be

1107
noted: both the headline rate and the seasonally adjusted figures fell. I wish that I could say that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) had acknowledged the fall, but, as always, he tried to paint a completely different picture. The hon. Gentleman is a perpetual merchant of doom and gloom: if he had the chance he would always talk down the Welsh economy, rather than acknowledging positive developments.
In the 1983 Parliament, the hon. Gentleman could be relied on to table the same question about unemployment for every Welsh Question Time. That tailed off remarkably in the three years of the current Parliament, in which unemployment fell month after month. The hon. Gentleman became rudderless then, and he may be in danger of becoming so again; we all hope, in our heart of hearts, that unemployment will fall and he will have nothing left to ask questions about.
Dr. Kim Howells: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not habitually flippant about such matters; I know that he cares about them. Will he acknowledge, however, that Wales contains some employment black spots? They can be found in the north-west, the middle and, indeed, the south. It is a travesty to treat the subject with anything other than the seriousness that it deserves.
Mr. Jones: I hasten to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have no wish to treat the subject with flippancy. I know that in the parts of south Wales that he and I represent, and in other parts of Wales, it is not always easy to attract potential investors. I suggest, however, that the Government and the WDA would be even more successful in helping Wales if Opposition Members concentrated on the positive aspects of what is being done, rather than adopting the attitude of doom and gloom that they so often display.
I welcome the opportunity to review the WDA's work. It has already been pointed out that, when the agency was set up in 1975, its establishment was opposed by my party. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside's party was then in government. The WDA was a rather different animal then—a very imprecise and wishy-washy animal. It was responsible for industrial development, promotion and publicity, the provision of industrial sites and premises, industrial infrastructure and environmental improvement. That is quite a wishy-washy list.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister reminded us, virtually the first action that was taken after the 1979 election was the reshaping of the agency into a meaningful body—one that has been successful in Wales. It now has much more precise and targeted objectives: the provision, letting and management of sites and premises for industry, land reclamation and the promotion of Wales as a location for industrial development
Is it not amazing that the promotion of Wales as a location for industrial development was originaly tucked away alongside publicity? It was originaly a very underrated feature. That alone may justify my party's opposition in 1975, and our subsequent reshaping of the agency.
Do not Opposition Members remember the fiasco of the advance factories? The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—and probably the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—would scuttle around Wales, opening one advance factory after another. It
1108
became a joke among the people of Wales: yet another empty shed would have its ribbon cut by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That was the standard of the WDA before my right hon. Friend reshaped it into the successful animal that it is now.
The present Government have made the agency much more specific and appropriate. It should never be forgotten that only the present Government have provided it with sufficient funding. As my right hon. Friend was able to announce, its budget has been doubled in real terms, to £160 million. The WDA is now a success of which we can all be proud, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) stressed its success in attracting inward investment. Since the inward investment arm was formed in 1983, approximately 85,000 jobs have been created or secured. We should all praise the agency highly for that.
I recall attending in the summer recess the most pleasing opening of the Robert Bosch factory outside Cardiff. I should give credit to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State because he has devoted much energy to developing links with the motor areas of Baden-Württemberg, where Robert Bosch came from, and with Catalonia. He has signed a remarkable treaty in Catalan and Welsh, and we look forward to further developments between Wales and Catalonia.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that this year the WDA has achieved another record in attracting 165 projects worth £830 million and 15,000 jobs. Again, that is a most creditable figure. I emphasise what my right hon. Friend said—that attracting inward investment is a team job involving Ministers, the Welsh Development Agency, county and district councils and, in my part of south Wales, Cardiff and Vale enterprise. In addition—sometimes it does not get thanked enough—Cardiff chamber of commerce and industry plays a major part in supporting missions abroad and looking after potential investors who come to Wales.
Inward investment has been a real success in Wales. The policy of the Trades Union Congress to Japanese investment is particularly regrettable. It described it as an alien culture.
Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman paid tribute of the work of the Cardiff chamber of commerce and industry, which received considerable grant moneys from local authorities for the work that it undertook with other bodies. Will he be a little more even-handed rather than appearing to be churlish in criticising organisations and ignoring the contribution of local authorities?
Mr. Jones: That shows that the hon. Gentleman was not listening. If he had paid closer attention, he would have heard me refer to the team that usually comprised the Welsh Office, the WDA and local councils. I also mentioned the significant contribution of the Cardiff chamber of commerce and industry. I do not depart from what I said.
I was dealing with the worrying stance of the TUC in condemning Japanese investment as an alien culture. Especially worrying—I did not notice any comment from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, but perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will deal with this—is Labour Members failing to condemn the TUC's attitude to Japanese inward

1109
investment. Wales has been most successful in attracting Japanese investment and is therefore most vulnerable to a Labour-TUC campaign against such investment. That would only encourage existing investment to relocate elsewhere and potential investment to say that Japanese investment is not welcome in Wales.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I have no authority to speak on behalf of Wales TUC, but from my knowledge of its activities I can say that that is not its policy. It has worked hard to ensure suitable trades union agreements to facilitate Japanese investment in Wales.
Mr. Jones: I look forward to the Wales TUC distancing itself from the TUC, otherwise it will feel that it is being betrayed by the TUC's hostile approach. Japanese companies in Wales and those who care about the Welsh economy must be curious about why Opposition Members have not condemned the TUC's policy.
Mr. Michael: We should all agree on the need to encourage inward investment and indigenous industry and adopt a bipartisan approach. Labour Members agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnyd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) that Wales TUC has adopted such an approach. There has been a partnership between the different agencies of national and local government. In view of the importance of the debate and of the WDA, I invite the hon. Gentleman to be less churlish and not turn it into a party-political ping-pong match. It is too important for that.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman always dodges the issue. Perhaps I should give way again so that he can condemn the TUC's policy of hostility to Japanese companies and for describing them as an alien culture. We know that that is the TUC's position. Common sense tells us that the only likely result is that Japanese investment will be frightened away and not made welcome. Shall I give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can condemn the TUC?
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman might as well give way so that we can get a little common sense into the debate. We are discussing the WDA. If he knows anything about the work to secure inward investment in Wales, including Japanese investment, he should know of the close partnership, to which tribute has been paid by successive Secretaries of State, between Wales TUC and unions. It is a diversion for the hon. Gentleman to go down this course. Although it is not for me to call him to order, I suggest that he returns to the subject of the Welsh Development Agency.
Mr. Jones: I suppose that I should apologise. I have been wasting the time of the House by allowing the hon. Gentleman to intervene. He continues to evade the point. He will not condemn the TUC. He is saying, as a Labour Front-Bench spokesman, that he does not care about Japanese inward investment. By not condemning the hostility to Japanese investment, on behalf of his party he is saying that he does not want Wales to have the opportunity of exporting to Japan. Instead, he would prefer investment to be made elsewhere and for Japan to export to Wales.
1110
Wales can develop far more profitable opportunities from its successful partnership with Japan. About three years ago, a parliamentary mission to Japan met the head of Yuasa Batteries. His opening remarks were, "How can we apply the Thatcher miracle here in Japan?" the Japanese recognise that they can gain from us in the same way as we can gain from them. But we shall not gain from the hostility of the TUC or from Labour's failure to condemn that attitude.
Another inappropriate development has been the unfortunate way in which the chairman of the WDA has been drawn into political debate. Early-day motions have been tabled by an hon. Gentleman who is not in his place to explain what he means which make some unwarranted or not obviously justified allegations against the chairman. The most substantiated charge against him is that, in the middle of a busy business trip to the other side of the world, he might have had a 24-hour stop-over en route from Australia to the west coast of America. That is a most ridiculous charge. It is like criticising the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) for stopping for a cup of coffee at Membury or Leedelamere services as he drives home to Cardiff on the M4 tonight. That the chairman should have a break and stop at a normal refuelling point for 24 hours—all air services from Australia stop at one or two locations—scarcely appears to warrant a wholly unjustified early-day motion. Again, I wait to see what Opposition Front-Bench Members say about that slur. Anyone who has been on parliamentary missions abroad will know that they are not junkets. Their itineraries—or those of the missions on which I have been—have been exhaustive. There was very little free time left to any of the participants. The people who work so hard for Wales inevitably need a break at the weekend to recharge their batteries so that the hard work done until Saturday morning can be restarted on Monday morning.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is not here. I regard the early-day motion as the cheapest of cheap shots. I imagine that he does not have great support from his colleagues. In considering the signatories of the two early-day motions, one finds that of the first six only one signature on each motion is that of a Welsh Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has had to rely for support on English Members of Parliament, and we can see those who signed this wholly unwarranted and unjustified slur against the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and against the agency itself. I wish that the hon. Gentleman were here to hear what I say. He is doing nothing other than contributing to the "selling Wales short" campaign.
I have met the chairman of the WDA a few times and I know of no justification for such an attack. He appears to have very much the right approach, which is to go out and get business for Wales. Who can be surprised that changes are being made to such an agency? It is a body which must constantly move on, change and become more efficient and more expert. It is natural that a new chairman of the WDA would change the style of the agency's operations. From what I can see, he seems to be making the right changes and the WDA is making progress.
I hope that the useless and ridiculous early-day motions, which should never have appeared on the Order Paper, can be put behind us and that we can pretend that they do not exist. In general, the WDA and all those who work for it are doing a good job, and we want to see them do even better.
6.11 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome the Bill to increase the investment limit of the Welsh Development Agency from £700 million to £950 million. The WDA's record is very good and I do not think that any hon. Member will dispute that.
I do not wish to be churlish, but I am a little concerned about the comparison between the ability of the WDA to spend £950 million and the £16 million approximately that is allocated to the Development Board for Rural Wales. Since the WDA also has a remit to operate in rural areas, it is clear that some of the money allocated to it will find its way into the rural areas of north, south and west Wales. However, there has been a lack of recognition so far in the debate of the crisis in the countryside, in farming and in the rural areas. I am greatly concerned that many sons—even single sons—of farming families are now leaving the industry. That has happened to the chairman of the Brecon and Radnor National Farmers Union, who was a member of the same young farmers club as I was. His son is unable to continue on the family farm, which is sad.
I think that we all accept that there must be an interventionist role in the WDA and the DBRW for channelling public funds into a mixed economy, so more attention should be paid to the very low incomes now to be found in farming. They are now at their lowest since the second world war.
One problem confronting agriculture and agricultural products is the power of the supermarket chains in the marketplace. They now control more than 50 per cent. of food retail marketing. Indeed, one would have thought that it should not be necessary for them to ask to open on Sundays in order to ply their trade. I should have thought that they were doing very nicely anyway. However, that leaves the agricultural industry, and farmers in particular, in a very weak bargaining position. I should have thought that the WDA and the DBRW could in future pay more attention to aspects of co-operating marketing. Earlier this week I visited the Royal Welsh showground and I was pleased to hear the Chairman of the DBRW, Mr. Glyn Davies, announce investment in a new food hall on the Royal Welsh agricultural show site. This is an excellent initiative and should be the forerunner of more initiatives to market more Welsh food products.
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the financial backing that the Development Board for Rural Wales is giving to food promotion which will be our main arm in selling Welsh food products at home and abroad.
Mr. Livsey: I am certainly aware of that fact and I welcome such initiatives which, I think, are long overdue. I am glad to see that some are in the pipeline. I am concerned about the present inability of farmers to co-operate effectively in marketing their food products. I hope that such initiatives will assist that process.
I am especially concerned about the lack of EC abattoirs in rural Wales, whether in the WDA's area or in that of the DBRW. I think that I am right in saying that there is now a fourth abattoir in Llanidloes which—I acknowledge—has received support from the DBRW. However, let us compare our position in rural Wales with that of other parts of the United Kingdom. Scotland has 20 European Community-approved abattoirs and Northern Ireland has 28, so we are a long way behind. I
1112
should like the DBRW and the WDA to encourage co-operative marketing groups among farmers and to enable them to set up abattoirs and meat packing plants so that they can compete in the fierce retail food market in Britain and, I hope, to export to mainland Europe where they also need to compete.
Unless we have our house in order and can market products that housewives want and which are in an easily accessible form for modern living, we shall lose out. It appears that unless things change rapidly, we shall be able to slaughter only about 40 per cent. of our lamb crop in Wales. We still have little ability to produce marketable products from meat packing, and so on.
I make no apology for drawing the Minister's attention to an issue that concerns my constituency. I noted the WDA's great success in land reclamation in south and north Wales. It has done an excellent job. However, as the Minister will know, I am very concerned about a continuing burning tyre fire on a derelict site. The fire has serious environmental consequences at Heyope near Knighton, where 10 million tyres have been on fire for the past two years as a result of arson. Water is becoming steadily more polluted in the river Teme. Four million water consumers downstream in the west midlands might be threatened. To be fair, many agencies have tried to tackle the problem, including the Powys fire service, which has gone as far afield as Canada to draw attention to the problem. As many millions of pounds are available to the WDA to reclaim old sites in south and north Wales, will the Minister please consider the possibility of using derelict land reclamation funds from the WDA to tackle that site, which is not large? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds, not millions of pounds, to overcome the problem. There I leave that topic.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I know that that problem is causing concern and I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that there will be an early meeting of the chairman of the WDA, the local authority and company representatives to discuss it further.
Mr. Livsey: I am delighted to hear that and I thank the Minister most sincerely. There is great and mounting concern about the situation, which not only affects a small locality but has wider implications. I believe that the situation is unique in the world.
Another aspect of the WDA and, to some extent, the DBRW which concerns me—I am not nit-picking; I am merely mentioning the matter—is the desirability of having more in-house consultants and agencies in Wales to provide consultancy work for the two agencies. Far too often consultancy services have to come from outside Wales, yet in Wales we have people with professional training who could develop greater expertise in consultancy work, especially financial consultancy. I trust that in future this idea will come more to the fore.
Only yesterday, as the Minister will know, we had a wide-ranging discussion on infrastructure projects in Wales—especially roads. Wales still has poor infrastructure. We still need a north-south road and better links between mid-Wales and the midlands. That will require more public investment than can be provided by local authorities, or even by the Welsh Office. Some of the agencies may be able to assist us. Perhaps the WDA and the DBRW could make recommendations for improved

1113
infrastructure in Wales. That would assist with exports and communications and improve economic activity in general.
I am sure that the Welsh Office already consults on the matter, but perhaps it could consult the agencies more on economic infrastructure, such as roads and railways. Perhaps it could consider jointly with the Department of Transport the desirability of electrifying the railway lines into Wales.
Other hon. Members have rightly stressed the importance of skill training. It is vital. We know that Wales has an immensely dedicated resource in its work force. Hon. Members have also rightly praised the Welsh work force for its ability to get down to the job, tackle it and learn how to increase productivity. However, even given the advance of the training and enterprise councils, we need more integrated skill training and more integration with local education authorities, too. That matter needs more attention. Sandwich courses are important, as is training on the job and then returning to courses run by education authorities—higher education colleges, for example. I was in that environment before I entered the House.
Perhaps with the increased investment available under the Bill the WDA will be able to assist with the problem of unemployment. Wales is still an unemployment black spot, with more than 120,000 people out of work. That is far too many. The problem must be tackled.
The philosophy of the mixed economy is now widely accepted on both sides of the House, despite what the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) said, Thatcherism is dead. It may have been a factor in the 1980's, but it does not live in the 1990's. We are in a different era altogether. We all accept the mixed economy and the fact that the WDA and DBRW can contribute to it.
We have been fortunate in some of the tenants of the Welsh Office, especially the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—I suspect that the tendencies of the present Secretary of State, too, are on the damp side. We have been fortunate that there has been the will to pursue the philosophy of running the mixed economy better. The fact that the Bill provides increased powers for giving financial support to the WDA shows that clearly, too.
The problem of the low-wage economy in Wales still needs to be tackled. We will not get better quality jobs until we have better skill training and more skilled people there. That cannot be emphasised too much—nor can the importance to the Welsh economy of home-based industry and small businesses that grow. More attention must be paid to them, especially in terms of providing better financial arrangements and management assistance. I know that the chief executive of the WDA is now considering that and will soon go round the small businesses of Wales, geeing them up and trying to improve the position. I welcome that initiative.
Increasing the amount of manufacturing industry, after its disastrous decline over the past 12 years, is vital for Wales. The WDA will have a crucial role there too.
The future of Wales lies within the European Community. I strongly endorse monetary union and greater policial integration in the EC. I believe that we will get more for the Welsh economy, a higher standard of
1114
living and a better future for our young people out of better integration within the European Community. Federalism is much misunderstood in some parts of the Conservative party. Subsidiarity—the policy coming out of the EC—fits Wales well. It is about making decisions at appropriate levels in the Community, so one would hope that in future more power will reside at a Welsh level. Parts of the WDA operation already show that. All that we need to do now is to bring greater democracy to Wales to ensure that political decision making, too, is brought nearer to the people.
At a European level, the creation of a single currency is inevitable and will bring great benefits to Wales. It is only just round the corner. We have a few little local difficulties, such as Maastricht, to overcome, but on the whole the British people, especially the Welsh, are behind those moves. We are going in the right direction, and my party welcomes the Bill.
6.27 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The Welsh Development Agency has been, is and, I am sure, will remain the development lifeline of communities such as mine. We find it difficult now to believe in life without the WDA. But sadly, however much of a lifeline it has been and still is, I have to report that in the past decade it has been unable to cushion us against or insulate us from recession and economic mismanagement.
The Secretary of State said today, as he has repeatedly said in the past, that we face a period of restructuring the Welsh economy because of the loss of jobs in coal and steel over the past decade. I remind him, and the House, that in my community over the past 10 years three times as many jobs have been lost from the manufacturing sector as have been lost from coal and from the closure of the last of the Dowlais iron works. It is not the collapse of coal and of iron in the past decade, but the collapse of manufacturing industry that was brought into our communities to replace the coal and steel jobs which has created the jobs chasm. That has been our major problem in the 1980s.
It could be argued that the problems of the early 1980s led to a need to restructure and to develop new production techniques in the manufacturing sector. That view was taken as much by the trade union movement in Hoover in my constituency as by management and by the Government. However, we rightly feel resentment and bitterness about the second recession and about the second destruction of jobs that is happening now. That is not a consequence of restructuring and it has nothing to do with coal or steel. The self-inflicted recession and loss of jobs are a result of mismanagement by the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and the Cabinet during the two years that led to a crazy commercial and property boom not in south Wales, but in other parts of the country. That had to be stopped by cripplingly high interest rates. In turn, that not only brought to a halt the property boom in the south-east, but brought about the sudden and disastrous decline of manufacturing investment in industrial and consumer goods. We have the right to say that the job losses suffered in the past 18 months have occurred as a result of mismanagement by the Government. The Welsh Development Agency has been unable to protect us from that.
The problem is best illustrated in my own community. Effort has been put in by all concerned, including the

1115
Secretary of State, the Minister, the Welsh Development Agency, local authorities and myself. We have worked hard to attract new companies. It was announced recently that two new companies in my community, an exciting prospect, could bring in 170 jobs in the next couple of years. Last week, almost 100 jobs on one line were lost at Nancanco in Rhymney which almost wiped out the job opportunities provided by the new companies. What has happened is a result of economic mismanagement, not of demanding too high wage increases—Hoover workers have scarcely had a wage increase—or of bad industrial relations in the past two years. Workers' rights have been eroded week by week and month by month in our community. There is no citizens charter for people at work who are having to accept poor conditions and relationships. The jobs have gone as a result of economic mismanagement by the Government over the past two years.
Once again, we must try to bridge the jobs chasm which has emerged in communities such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. We turn to the Welsh Development Agency for support and assistance in bridging the jobs chasm. Two questions lie behind many of the speeches made by hon. Members. Where will the new jobs come from? How shall we attract them? If we can answer those two questions, we can identify the role of the Welsh Development Agency and of the money that we shall approve through the Bill.
Where will the jobs come from? Much has rightly been said about the need to attract inward investment and all communities in south Wales can demonstrate the success of inward investment. However, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) have observed, the game is getting more competitive. Whether from central Europe or from other Community countries, there will be growing competition, and the competition to attract inward investment is already intense. We must not become over-dependent on a new wave of inward investment. In some ways, we do not need to be too dependent on new inward investment because within our own communities with the existing inward investors there are tremendous job creation possibilities.
I read with great fascination a recent publication by the Department of Trade and Industry, and I hope that the Minister, the Secretary of State and everyone in the Welsh Office has also read it. One had given up the Department of Trade and Industry, yet in June 1991 it published a document called "Market Opportunities for Electronic Component Manufacturers—A Study of Demand Created by Japanese Electronic Equipment Manufacturers in the UK". It shows that about £1 billion worth of components are feeding existing inward investment and that the figure will rise in the next four years to £1·7 billion. Hon. Members should think of the jobs potential if we can reach out and develop the contacts, and if we can create the manufacturing capacity to meet some of that demand. The Department of Trade and Industry document refers to local political pressures. I am delighted that somebody in that Department understands the issue, even if the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not. The document refers to the pressure that is being put on existing inward investors to diversify and to source in the local communities.
We have heard nothing so far about what strategy the Secretary of State and the Welsh Development Agency will adopt to gain a share of the magnificent Japanese
1116
investment in south Wales and to benefit from the components potential of inward investment. Will we gain a share of the local sourcing? That could be a major area of job creation within our community. Everyone dismisses the sheds. I do not, and I am very glad that there are sheds in my area because we shall need many more if we are to fill the jobs chasm. Companies, whether local, United Kingdom or owned by inward investors, will come to the sheds to feed components into the first generation of inward investment manufacturing. We must appreciate that potential and we should not spend all our time chasing new companies, although we must do that to an extent. We must spend as much time building on the potential that has been identified even in dry Departments such as the Department of Trade and Industry.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Surely he must be fully aware that with many of the new inward investors, especially the Japanese, there was an insistence that a percentage of the materials should be sourced either in the United Kingdom or in other European countries. He will be aware that many companies in Wales, especially the Gooding Sanken Group, have taken advantage of that.
Mr. Rowlands: Yes. My point is that there is pressure for insistence on a growing percentage of local sourcing. We want a far more definitive strategy from the Secretary of State and from the Welsh Development Agency so that we can tap into the growing potential. Sony is now sourced heavily from within the United Kingdom, as is Nissan in Sunderland. One of the companies that is coming into my area will produce goods for the new markets and new opportunities created by the first generation of inward investors.
Are we moving to a new plane raising our sights and setting targets in view of the potential job creation in Wales resulting from those developments? Is there, for example, a view on the enormous Bosch development adjacent to the M4 within 15 minutes' journey time of my community? What strategy has been adopted to ensure that, as a result of the Bosch development, jobs in the components industry will be created in the community of Merthyr Tydfil? We cannot fit the Bosches into our valley communities. We do not have great land sites—we do not need them. We need to create 2,000 to 3,000 jobs as a spin-off from other investments. I should like a lot more. I should like to hear the chairman of the WDA and the Secretary of State overtly, deliberately and consciously in a planned fashion reaching out to the new potential market for jobs in our community. Perhaps they do so behind the scenes.
Unless the Minister of State can prove otherwise, the trouble is that, after all those efforts, information on the Welsh economy is appalling. The paucity of information about the Welsh economy strikes one. Those are not my words; they are the words of the most recently published document, entitled "Valley Skills", an inward investment study. That document came out of the Welsh Office last week, and it states:
"The paucity of information on a number of basic issues is a theme running through this report".
The report makes that point very well. There is a paucity of information about what skills we have and what skills we need.
If there is enormous potential for jobs within the new inward investment that has already occurred, how will we

1117
attract them? How will Merthyr, Rhymney, Neath, Pontypridd or Llanelli attract those jobs? There are two methods—one involves the role that the WDA has been and is playing, and with which it is only beginning to come to terms, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. The first is a traditional method. I do not dismiss it. Perhaps my hon. Friends went too far in saying that we have the necessary property. I am not much interested in property, but I am certainly interested in land reclamation. I am certainly interested in the building of modern industrial real estate in communities such as mine, because at least one has something physical to offer and to market, and that is extremely important. That is why I was concerned about and interested in the WDA budget figures for the next couple of years.
In the public expenditure White Paper on the Welsh Office there is a decline in net expenditure by the Welsh Office to the Welsh Development Agency from £85 million or £90 million in 1991–92 to £64 million in two years. That is a drop of more than £20 million in the contribution from the Welsh Office. However, the figure for the gross budget remains at £160 million. It is for the Minister of State to justify the figures, but it seems that the budget will be sustained by increasing rents on new properties from £32 per sq m to £45 per sq m—a good contribution to industrial inflation. I must say—and by existing average rents of the whole portfolio rising from £15 to £24 per sq m.
The second method is a huge divestment of properties. I am not arguing the merits or demerits; that is not my concern at the moment. My concern is whether that will happen and, if it does not happen, what will happen to the WDA budget. The forecast is to go from the current sales this year of 74,000 sq m to 300,000 sq m. That will be three times as much property sold. My right hon. Friend made a point about preoccupation with property. There will be tremendous preoccupation to reach those figures. I cast doubt because the figure for 1991 factory divestment was supposed to be 209,000 sq m this year. The achievement is 74,000 sq m. Given that track record, it is reasonable to ask whether, if we do not reach those figures, and if there is a shortfall in factory sales, the budget will be made up by the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State in the coming year. That is all I ask, and I should like an answer to that question, because we are dependent on that budget.
A major new matter to which the WDA must pay attention is the attraction of our communities, as my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out. It gives me nightmares to watch our society being de-skilled and to watch many people's skills becoming redundant. I remember marching a couple of Fridays ago. Banners were being waved; it was a romantic moment. Pragmatically, I asked the chairman of the lodge committee, "What are you going to do?" He said, "I don't know yet. I am a trained electrician; I was trained by British Coal. The electrics that I know are totally redundant in the world outside. I was a good Coal Board electrician, but I am not an electrician for the new age. I asked British Coal, with all its job shops, to train me again. They said, 'No, we will not train you again, because we have already trained you once.'" From British Coal, British Gas and British Telecom and the South West
1118
electricity board came a generation with good training skills. Privatised companies will let us down on training, just as manufacturing is letting us down on training.
One of the real ironies is what we read in many documents, the latest and glossiest of which is the strategic guidance from the Secretary of State, entitled "Skills and Enterprise: An Agenda for Wales". It was released yesterday. I thought that it was a Labour party policy document, it looks so good and colourful, but it is minus the content. It states:
"The Secretary of State therefore invites Welsh TECs, working with the WDA and DBRW, to develop proposals for a coherent framework of services on skills that the development agencies can market to inward investors."
It is recognised that we shall need skills and market them to attract new jobs and new opportunities to our community. Training is supposed to be employer-led, but I must tell the Secretary of State that employers are not training. We are depending on the very people who have let us down. I do not say that that is the cause of the recession, but they have cut the money that has previously been spent on training. We are turning to a manufacturing and trading base that does not exist. If it exists, it has shrunk to a level that is incapable of sustaining a new training initiative of any character.
Another worrying matter—it relates to the electrician from Penallta—is that the type of training being offered is often out of date. I recently went to a fine training skills centre. It shook me rigid that people were being taught old-fashioned skills and on old-fashioned machinery. It is true that many of those people will go into factories with such machinery, so we are training for the here and now if not for the past, but there is a new generation of manufacturing, and production techniques. Hoover in Merthyr is demonstrating that. Any new inward investor will bring modern manufacturing training and machinery to our communities. We shall have to offer people who will understand and have a feel for that type of production and the training that goes with it, but who will prepare the new generation for the next five or 10 years? Who will help middle-aged redundant people in communities such as mine?
We do not have the manufacturing base or training programmes to go with it. That is why, in the summer, I wrote a special programme and prepared a detailed analysis of what would be a manufacturing training programme for a community such as mine. I put a proposal that we create a centre of excellence. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point that we may have to send our people to Japan and elsewhere, but we could train them in our own communities, but that would require much more intervention and greater effort to create opportunities for our people. The WDA, alongside our TECs, will have to play a more fundamental part in educating the new generation so that, when we invite and attract new companies to our areas, we will offer not only major new industrial real estate, new factories, and financial assistance, but a community with modern skills, ready to attract modern industry to create a modern economy for the Wales of the 1990s.
6.49 pm
Mr. Keith Raffan: I agree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), especially about the paucity of the information available to us about existing

1119
skills in Wales, the skills that we need and therefore the importance of a skills audit. He is also right to say that it is at a local level that we can best assess the skills that are needed. My worry about the training and enterprise councils is that they cover too big an area. Sometimes the local authorities know best exactly what skills training we need. The district council in my constituency has played a dramatic role in our area's economic and industrial regeneration. There needs to be much greater integration between the local authorities and the TECs on matters relating to training and skills needed.
Although, as I have said, I respect some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, he will not be surprised if I disagree with him about the recession. He was unfair in looking at the British economy and British interest rates in isolation. My latest information was that the Labour party had been converted in its thinking on Europe. We must look at the British economy and British interest rates in the European context and bear in mind the fact that we are not the only country in an economic recession: other countries are in the same position.
In addition, the level of our interest rates is now directly affected by factors outside our control, ranging from the strength of the peseta in the exchange rate mechanism, the fact that the German Government have taken on the enormous task of regenerating east Germany with the consequent impact on Germany's interest rates, and even that, according to the chief of staff at the White House, President Bush may have made certain impromptu and spontaneous remarks on a golf course.
All those factors are outside our control but, in the global economic village in which we now live, they have a direct effect on our economy and interest rates. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will nod their heads vigorously at that, because nobody could be keener to reduce interest rates than the Government, especially as we have only a few more months to run of this Parliament and we are desirous of re-election. As I have said, we must look at our economy and interest rates in an international context.
I must apologise to the House in advance for not being able to be present to hear the replies to the debate, but, like hon. Members of all parties, I am glad to have the opportunity to support the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there is no doubt that the Welsh Development Agency has made an immense contribution to the Welsh economy and to the industrial regeneration of the Principality. I have direct experience of that in my constituency, where the partnership between the WDA, the Welsh Office and the local authorities has been remarkable.
If I had to specify one local authority, I should like to pay tribute to Delyn borough council. That partnership has been to the enormous benefit of local people. I remember the dark days of 1985 and the closure of Courtauld's greenfield site where over 800 people were made redundant. That had a multiplier effect on the local economy, with a further 400 or 500 redundancies. Male unemployment in Flint and Holywell approached 40 per cent.
There has been a dramatic improvement since then. The local economy used to be far too concentrated on only three industries—coal, steel and textiles. However, thanks to the partnership between the Welsh Office, the WDA and the local authorities, it is now much more diversified. That
1120
would not have been possible without the contribution of the Welsh Development Agency, especially in the Delyn enterprise zone and the Greenfield business park.
Public sector pump-priming has led to the regeneration of our local economy and is one of the principal reasons why the economy of Delyn is far more resilient in this recession. Our local economy is far more diversified and is therefore far more flexible and capable of resisting this recession, with the result that it is not having so terrible an impact on employment, on local families and on the entire social fabric of our community. Those dark days have gone. I am sure that we shall come out of this recession stronger than we were before, that the local economy will diversity still more and that it will therefore be strengthened still further.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that it is important that, as the private sector takes over the provision of factory space in the more accessible areas—those with the better connections to the motorway network—the WDA follows the dualling of the A55 into north-west Wales. That is where public sector pump-priming is now needed. We have seen the creation of new, private industrial estates in north-east Wales—in Wrexham Maelor, and in Alyn and Deeside.
Although we do not always hear this from Opposition Members, those new private industrial estates and business parks have been a tremendous advance but they would not have been established without initial public sector pump-priming. That is what originally regenerated those areas and made it possible for the private sector successfully to become involved. We must now move that public sector pump-priming further along the north Wales coast, and into the rural areas, to help to regenerate those local economies also.
I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the WDA's extraordinary record on inward investment. Many countries may well have been seeking to establish plants in the European Community as we approach the creation of the single market, but the WDA has taken the initiative. It has not been passive. Thank goodness, the part of the organisation responsible for inward investment has been renamed Welsh Development International. At least one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has been adopted. I am also glad that we now have a European office in Brussels.
It is amazing that, although the Government usually respond negatively to our Select Committee reports—we are now accustomed to that and can almost dictate the Government's response—a couple of years later, they undergo a Damascene conversion and come round to our point of view. It seems that the Select Committee is sometimes ahead of the Welsh Office. We can only hope that if the Select Committee comes out in favour of a Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Office will eventually follow us on that as well—who knows? The WDA deserves credit for its extraordinary achievement and active involvement in inward investment. The investment may well have been going to come to Europe, but the WDA has made sure that it has come to Wales and it deserves full credit for that.
I intervened in the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) on the issue of economic and monetary union, on which he and I disagree. The right hon. Gentleman said that that would have a devastating impact on Wales, but he did not convince me. He did not give any specific details of how that would occur. My view

1121
is that there will be a devastating effect on Wales if we do not have a single currency or join in economic and monetary union. If we remain outside, much of the inward investment in the Principality will be under tremendous pressure from their parent companies to relocate to the mainland of Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has not commented on that. She concentrates on the symbolism of sovereignty, but I am afraid that I am less concerned about sovereignty, which to me is a commodity that is to be ceded, shared and pooled to the benefit of my constituents; I am more concerned about their jobs and future livelihoods. I am not concerned about the idealism of sovereignty. Indeed, we gave up sovereignty when we entered the Community—or, at least, we ceded or pooled some of it.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley signed the Single European Act, she ceded sovereignty. When we joined the ERM, we merged still more of our sovereignty with that of our partners with whose currencies we strongly linked our own. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his two predecessors have all seen sovereignty as a commodity to be ceded, pooled, shared and merged to the advantage of our people—and long may that continue. Whatever they may say, that is what they have done, and that must continue.
We must not be left outside the inner currency circle, because that would have a devastating effect on the Welsh economy. The WDA's solid record of achievement in inward investment would be in danger of being undermined if we stand apart and are isolated.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli on what I hope I may call his overall view of Europe. We are not geographically well placed, because we are on the edge of the continent. The continent's centre of gravity is now moving eastwards. Following the unification of Germany and the opening up of eastern Europe, we are now facing a changed situation. That is why it is tremendously important that the Government strongly support the WDA—and other agencies in the United Kingdom, such as Scottish Enterprise—by increased investment in our infrastructure. This is crucial because, if we stand outside a single currency, inward investment might well relocate to the mainland of Europe. If we do not get our infrastructure up to scratch, we shall lose inward investment, particularly to the so-called golden triangle between London, Paris and Hamburg—principally, the Pas de Calais area.
The Select Committee held an inquiry into the impact of the channel tunnel on Wales. Members who were involved and took part in the visit to France will be well aware of how much further ahead the French are in providing the infrastructure for the tunnel at their end. In terms of both rail and road connections, I estimate that the French are 10 to 15 years ahead. I find this frightening.
At a meeting, the French ambassador talked about a second channel tunnel being started within two years of completion of the first. I wish that we had that kind of positive thinking that, in the words of Iain Macleod, when the ball rolls our way, we would grab it and run. We have not done so in regard to infrastructure. There is therefore a danger that we shall lose out. However much the WDA
1122
does about inward investment, if our infrastructure is not up to scratch, we shall be in great danger of losing future investment projects to the mainland of Europe.
We heard from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about land reclamation and industrial dereliction in south Wales. Great sacrifices have been made by the Welsh people and the Scottish people at various times in our recent economic history, in the interests of the nation as a whole. It it time for the people of Kent to realise that we have made sacrifices for the British economy and the welfare of our people in terms of connections, especially freight connections, between the channel tunnel and London—and beyond, to the Principality and further north. It is perhaps now the turn of people in the south to make a similar sacrifice.
I do not for a moment underrate the importance of the environment, but it must not be allowd to obstruct what is essential to the future economy of our country. The French have a highly centralised planning system compared with ours, and I do not wish to impose that on our people, but we must take a more positive attitude, make a more determined effort.
When the people of Amiens rise in protest and march down their streets it is because the high-speed connection to the channel tunnel does not go through their town but bypasses it. I do not expect the people of Kent to go to that extreme, but there must be a change of attitude. We must get our infrastructure right and do so quickly; otherwise, we shall lose out permanently.
Mr. Livsey: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on British Rail's announcement last week that passengers from south Wales to the continent will have to get off the train at Paddington and go by underground to Waterloo? In the Welsh Select Committee, the chairman of British Rail promised us that we would have cross-platform changes at Waterloo. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that one hour will be wasted in the passage from south Wales to Paris?
Mr. Raffan: We discussed that with the Minister for Public Transport in the Select Committee. Ministers sometimes change jobs so quickly that I cannot keep up with who is in the post. Several important points came out of that Select Committee discussion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I want to avoid getting bogged down in detail, but it appears at times that the Department of Transport looks in a blinkered way at the transport problems of London, such as the rail link to Heathrow, and new tube links, without co-ordinating them and integrating them into the channel tunnel network. We need a much more integrated and coherent transport policy.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order.
Mr. Raffan: I will bring my speech directly back to the WDA. I will forgive the hon. Gentleman for having distracted me.
If the WDA is to be given every opportunity to do what it should do for the economy of Wales, it must not be held back by a lack of adequate transport infrastructure. A team effort has been made to attract inward investment, and in Delyn it is between the WDA, the Welsh Office and the local authorities. Equally, in the all-Wales context, there is a partnership between the WDA, the Welsh Office

1123
and Government Departments in Whitehall. Others are involved. We cannot consider what the WDA does in isolation.
Economic development and our ability to attract inward investment can be held back by a lack of adequate infrastructure, which is the Government's responsibility. Now that we have a Prime Minister who travels by rail, perhaps we shall see dramatically increased investment in the railways in the years to come.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about a Europe of the regions. He mentioned the strong relationship that he and his fellow Ministers had built up with the four motor regions of Lombardy, Catalonia, Baden-Wurttemberg and Rhône-Alpes. I am strongly in favour of all those developments, but I would like to hear from the Minister more detail about how the Welsh Office sees the Europe of the regions liaising with the WDA, and the impact of the one on the other.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke in a recent speech on the periphery of the Conservative party conference about the need for an inter-regional body, although he was vague about its aims and powers. It would be an advisory body which would enhance accountability and administer structural funds. I should like to know how such a body might affect the WDA.
Infrastructure is, of course, also important in each of our constituencies. I worry about the division of responsibility for roads between the Welsh Office and the counties. The two do not necessarily integrate their road construction plans. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who is not here at the moment, and I have occasionally worked in tandem. We have sometimes shocked the Minister of State by appearing in his office together to discuss this issue.
I have long been worried by the lack of access link roads between the A55 and the industrial estates in my constituency and the tourist areas. If the vast investment of £500 per head—not all of which was spent on the Conwy tunnel—on dualling the A55 is to be worth while, we must have adequate link access roads. We must also have an improved British Rail network, especially in the north of the Principality.
I do not wish to digress too far, but the matters to which I have referred are crucial to the WDA. The agency cannot go to a potential inward investor—whether from overseas or from England—and seek investment without adequate infrastructure. That is the part which the Government must play in the partnership.
The Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency is the last remaining pit in north Wales. It was recently announced that it would switch from the long wall system of mining—I shall not give way to any technical interventions from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on this matter—to the pillar and stall or board and pile system. I am relieved that the hon. Member for Pontypridd is still nodding in agreement. I have been briefed by British Coal on these matters, which is more than can be said for the shadow Secretary of State for Energy.
This change will secure the future viability of the pit. It involves a significant investment. The pilot scheme will involve investment of £2·3 million. Sadly, the new tunnelling method is not labour-intensive, so at the end of 1993 the work force at Point of Ayr will be reduced from the current 496 to just under 300.
It is important that the WDA responds to this situation. We have had the announcement in advance, so we have
1124
time to prepare for the loss of jobs. I am grateful for British Coal's reassurance that there will be no compulsory redundancies. The job losses will affect not only my constituents but those of the hon. Member for Wrexham. The homes of the work force are spread over a wide area. We look to the WDA to work closely with the British Coal enterprise, which also does an important job. Again, a partnership can ensure that the impact of the redundancies on the local community is minimized. We must help those miners who are enterprising and want to start their own companies, and attract other investment into the area. We must ensure that those redundancies do not have a dramatic impact on the fabric of social life in the community. That is important, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of state will also be able to respond.
I am trying desperately to make an unprovocative speech as I am demob happy, but I could not help noticing that the Labour leader of Clwyd county council, Councillor Dennis Parry, said that he would seek a commitment for further investment from Lord Haslam. He seems to be a little out of date: British Coal's chairman is now Mr. Clark. The board of British Coal has already accepted a proposal for further investment at Point of Ayr. I hope that Mr. Parry and I will contact Mr. Clark together. I have already spoken to British Coal. British Coal and the Welsh Development Agency need to work together to minimise the impact of redundancies.
I am prepared to give the Labour party the credit for setting up the WDA, if Opposition Members are prepared to give us credit for the zeal of the converted in providing it with considerable resources over the past decade. Opposition Members, including those on the Front Bench, have welcomed the increased resources and the great good use to which they have been put to the benefit of the Welsh people.
I do not want to enter into past arguments. There is no question of the WDA disappearing, or of its offices abroad being closed, now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is no longer Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If ever there was a tribute to the effectiveness of the WDA, it was when he was groaning grumpily about the unfair advantage WDA offices overseas gave us in attracting inward investment into the Principality. Backhanded though it was, there could be no greater compliment to the effectiveness of the agency and its leaders.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the enormous amount of money that has now been spent by the agency—more than £1 billion. I am concerned about the accountability of the agency, not merely to the Government but to the House. Ultimately, it must be accountable to the House.
I would not want the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs to be so ineffective that, like the Scottish Select Committee, it might as well not exist. It should be reconstituted. We must move away from the present position that membership of the Committee is in proportion to party membership in the House as a whole. It should be formed in proportion to party strength in Wales alone. The Government should not worry about that. If the Welsh Select Committee is to be effective, it should be constituted in proportion to the number of hon. Members each party has in the Principality.
I am in favour of effective Select Committees, although I am not in favour of serving on them for eight years—as I had done until my resignation earlier this year. One

1125
Parliament is the maximum time that any Member of Parliament should serve on such a Committee because it involves a heavy work load.
On the WDA and its accountability to this House, it is important that the chairman and chief executive of the WDA should appear regularly before the Select Committee, especially when such a large amount of public money is being spent. We adopted the Select Committee system from the United States. I shall not enter into the controversy that has appeared in the press about who stayed at what hotel between what legs of an inward investment mission. It demeans hon. Members to make such comments. I hope that we can all rise above that.
The chairman, the chief executive and their colleagues in the WDA work hard and do a good job. However, the appointment of the chairman and chief executive are of great importance. They are responsible for the disbursement of such large amounts of public money that they should be subject to hearings in Select Committee, although those do not have to be as grandiose and pompous as confirmation hearings in the United States. That would be an improvement in the workings of the House.
That might get us away from small-minded early-day motions and the petty personal criticism of the people involved. With hearings there would be some sort of cross-party consensus on appointments, so the appointee would be more likely to be above the party political fray and less liable to be dragged down into it so frequently.
Select Committees should have greater power. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will consider that—especially the Whip on duty, who is busily writing at a rapid rate and I hope is including all these constructive thoughts in his notes, although the Government may not like my suggestion, because it diffuses power, taking it away from the Government. However, greater accountability would ensure the better working of the Welsh Development Agency.
How can we make the agency fully accountable? By setting up a Welsh assembly. I am almost a lone voice in this cause on the Conservative Benches. I am not worried about that. I do not say that where I go others will necessarily follow, although other Welsh Conservative Members are in favour of various forms of devolution. Ultimately, the WDA and all public sector bodies in Wales should be answerable to an assembly. That would lead to more effective, efficient government and would ultimately help the agency. That will come.
I am not saying that where Scotland goes, we shall inevitably follow, but the intensity of the debate in Scotland convinces me that it will not be long before an assembly is set up there, whatever may be said from the Government Front Bench at the moment, and that ultimately Wales will follow. I hope that the Government's conversion to the setting up of assemblies in Wales and Scotland will be as wholehearted, as convincing and as financially generous as our conversion to the establishment of the WDA.
7.15 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: It is always a pleasure to follow a thoughtful speech and there are rarely any more thoughtful than those by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). He suggested a number of challenging ideas. I
1126
certainly do not agree with them all, but he always makes me think. I wish that I heard that sort of speech more often from the Conservative Benches.
We have heard many condemnatory and self-righteous statements about attacks on various people. Wales is a small land. One of our great arts is probably gossiping about each other and we are brilliant at sticking knives into each other. There is no question about that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Surely not?
Dr. Howells: The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is one of the finest knife wielders that it has ever been my pleasure to encounter.
The chairman of the Welsh Development Agency is as tough a cookie as I have ever met. I am sure that he is well able to handle himself in any situation. As a believer in blood being thicker than water, I shall say little about him because I go mountain climbing with his first cousin. Although they are on opposite sides of the fence politically—about as far apart as it is possible to be—when one is dangling at the end of a rope and has fears about family ties, caution is needed.
The WDA has done a splendid job. It has helped enormously to transform the Welsh economy. We have heard about the high quality of inward investment that has come to Wales. The big search is still on and has brought record bonuses this year for more inward investment.
The WDA has been responsible for ensuring that the investment that has come to Wales has gone out with more added value. In the case of the best inward investment, we have added value to it and we can begin to sell it abroad. That must be a critical aim of any inward investment.
I understand from the agency's publications that it aims to "grow" small and medium-sized firms—that is a gardening term that it is now common in business. Wales has about 3,000 firms employing between 50 and 500 people. About two thirds of them are involved in manufacturing industry and about 1,000 are in the service sector. It worries me, however, that, although the WDA has played a positive role in trying to make those firms grow, it is subject to some criticisms. I do not want to criticise the disasters that we have seen—the Parrot corporation, the fly-by-night cowboys who came in, took the money and ran, and the bad investments. They are bound to happen. The point of the hon. Member for Delyn on accountability is important in that respect. Select Committees have an important role in monitoring that side of the business.
Some matters perplex me and I hope that the Minister can help. I see that he is having a briefing at the moment, understandably. Some time ago some colleagues and I sought clarification from the Welsh Office about why the WDA could help, for example, a Japanese firm seeking to settle in Wales and to develop its business, yet could not help, let us say, a group of coal miners who might wish to take advantage of the dearth in supply of high-quality anthracite by opening up a new mine or expanding an existing small mine. There have been serious problems of that sort.
Several private firms have approached British Coal, which has a monopoly in these affairs. It is the only body that can issue licences to mine coal. Those firms approached British Coal with a view to purchasing mines that British Coal had closed or intended to close. They

1127
were treated appallingly. For example, Ryans International, a firm based in St. Mellons in Cardiff tried to purchase the Blaenant colliery in the Dulais valley and the Cwmgwili colliery in the Gwendraeth. Both mines have substantial reserves. Both suffered badly from the inflexible technological approaches that the hon. Gentleman mentioned with regard to Point of Ayr. Yet, those firms were denied the opportunity to employ men and mine the coal profitably, not simply on a British or European basis, but on a world basis. Ryans International is confident that it can produce coal at sufficiently low prices to export it to European member states. The price might be as low as £20 or £25 a tonne. I understand that as many as 600 jobs could be tied up in such a project in the Vale of Neath alone. The WDA should have a role in that.
Wales has gradually struck away from its identity as a coal mining area. That is fair enough. None of us wants to go back to those dreadful days of colliery accidents and pneumoconiosis—that image of Wales. We want to nurse our resources in the best way possible and to bring into fruition a new era of coal mining. That new era could be led by such projects.
If we are prepared to risk capital on firms from the other side of the world or on individuals with appalling track records, without checking up on them before giving them money, we should think seriously before turning down the justifiable approaches of companies with great experience in mining which could do a good job.
Mr. Denzil Davies: There seems to be a tendency to disparage coal completely. The new high-tech industries are fine, but the anthracite coalfields could be developed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the WDA is well placed to help in that development?
Dr. Howells: I could not agree more. My right hon. Friend makes the point clear. The Government must think seriously about what they will do with British Coal's right to hand out licences.
British Coal is retreating from south Wales for bad, unimaginative reasons. The Government are not being energetic and intervening to ensure that it stays. The Government could intervene by encouraging the WDA to recognise the best projects that have been mooted by people who are interested in mining coal in south Wales. If British Coal will not mine it, let some one else do so. Those are revolutionary words from these Benches. I am advocating competition—competition against a monopoly that has done no good whatever in south Wales, certainly not in the past decade.
I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that and perhaps give the WDA the right at least to begin considering the matter. Some of our hardest-hit areas could be helped and much could be done to alleviate the criminal prices that we are paying for specialist coals such as anthracite and coking coal.
I congratulate the agency on its achievements in the environment. I know that that has been played down and earlier the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) pooh-poohed it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out, the transformation of the landscape plays a great part in transforming the mentality of people. It is important to eradicate the worst of what we have had to put up with for years. That is one of the WDA's great achievements.
1128
To revert briefly to what I was talking about a few seconds ago, there is a hidden agenda on mining. It is that we should extract that anthracite and coking coal by opencast coal mining. There is an alternative. People are ready to mine coal just as cheaply, but without ravaging our landscape. The WDA has done enormous work cleaning up our landscapes, especially our derelict areas. It would be short-sighted and criminal to undo that work, albeit temporarily, simply because there is not the imagination to put forward an alternative way of extracting it.
I hope that the WDA will be given the means to help local authorities move on to the whole business of cleaning up the environment. I know that it is keen not merely to take away the slag heaps from the mining and steel industries, but to help local authorities to clear up the stench from chemical factories, the dust from steel works and so on. The agency plays a central role in all that and I hope that it will continue to do so.
My hon Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about the sale of property. I understand that the administrative budget is about £167 million a year. In the current year the WDA is expected to raise about £35 million from the sale of properties and next year it is to raise £50 million. My hon. Friend's analysis of future provision of factory space and so on was good. I wish to ask a different question: what will happen when the Welsh Office, understandably, pushes for a higher proportion of funding to come from the sale of property? What happens when it has no property left to sell? We shall, indeed, be considering the construction of empty sheds, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, North described it. I should like some answers on that.
I am troubled by rumours. I know that Members of Parliament should not listen to rumours and I do not expect Ministers to confirm them. I have heard from various management consultants that it is said throughout the Treasury that the WDA's budget is large. Questions are perhaps asked about whether it should be reduced, whether the agency should be broken up along the lines of Scottish Enterprise, which is a disastrous reorganisation, or, at the very least, whether the agency should have its property function—a major generator of income—hived off.
The WDA is focusing on the right targets. For example, it is seeking to improve a woefully inadequate skills base in Wales and is trying to promote technology transfer, about which we have not heard much in the debate. Our technology transfer infrastructure is a grossly under-developed sector in Wales, as it is in most regions of the United Kingdom. The WDA is also forging European links with some of the most robust regional economies in Europe. The aims are to develop new opportunities for Welsh firms and to learn about the best practice available from some of the more innovative continental development agencies.
While those initiatives do not have a direct job creation role, and might therefore be subject to some criticism from the Treasury, they have potential for generating employment in the longer term as well as enhancing the innovative and competitive basis of the Welsh economy.
One of the most crucial areas of the initiatives—as mentioned in the excellent contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—is the issue of training on a Wales-wide basis. The Welsh Office has now absorbed the training, enterprise and education

1129
directorate. The north-west region of Britain has a good regionwide training and enterprise council network, with a single contact person to liaise with the EC in Brussels. That point was made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). That is an extremely important development and one must ask what is happening in Wales on that front. As a region, what are we doing in Wales to exploit EC training opportunities? Will the Welsh Office now play a more co-ordinating role, with the help of the WDA, in that sphere? Although I feel that the WDA would like to play a co-ordinating role with the TECs, that idea has been largely ruled out by the Welsh Office, which of course wants a hundred flowers to bloom, so to speak; it would like each TEC to do its own thing. The training places that have been cut out by the TECs should be restored as soon as possible.
Sir Wyn Roberts: It might help if I cleared up that point immediately. The co-ordinating role for education and training clearly belongs to the Welsh Office. The TECs have been established, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, but he will also be aware that the strategy document mentioned by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) refers to the strategy being related in particular to inward investment. The hon. Gentleman will be further aware of our co-ordinating role in the Welsh Office on further and higher education, following the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill which is now in the other place.
Dr. Howells: I thank the Minister for that useful piece of information and I am glad that the Welsh Office has moved in that direction. But there must be far greater co-ordination, if only between the work that is going on in the WDA and the other areas to which I referred. I have grave doubts about the wisdom of TECs doing their own thing without that co-ordination. I can see the virtues in allowing more local identification and initiative, but it needs more macro co-ordination.
On the whole issue of technology transfer and innovation, the WDA needs more support from the Welsh Office to promote the take-up of United Kingdom and EC funds. For example, the take-up of Department of Trade and Industry schemes for innovation and technology transfer appears to be very low. I shall be interested in anything the Minister can say about that.
The Welsh Office take-up of research and development funds from the EC is similarly low. That was exposed recently in an article in The Western Mail. Again, it is a Welsh Office rather than a WDA responsibility and I hope that the Minister will explain what the Government intend to do about that crucial area.
A number of issues affecting the Welsh economy should be aired. The first and foremost is how Wales is faring in the current recession, which is undermining much of the positive work that has been done in the past six years. Although the recession hit Wales later than some other regions, notably the south-east of England, we are also in the midst of it now, witness rising unemployment since the spring of 1990.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North, who unfortunately is not in his place, made the interesting point that this week's fall in the Welsh level of unemployment was the first since April last year. There have been rising business
1130
failures and falling output. It would be interesting to know how Wales compares with other regions on those three critical indices.
I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House appreciate that that is not trying to talk down Wales. It is trying to address the continuing fight to restructure the Welsh economy in such a way that its reaction to recession and downturn, when it occurs, is stronger than at present.
Apart from the current recession, there is the deep-seated problem of low per capita income in general and low pay in particular. Those points were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The low per capita income rates in Wales have not improved. Indeed, I understand from Welsh Office statistics that real wages in Wales have been declining relative to the rest of the United Kingdom and they seem to be declining in some of our key industries, such as electronics and motor components.
It would be helpful if the Minister would provide figures for Wales relative to the United Kingdom as a whole, for our recent success in attracting inward investment may have been due as much to low pay as to anything else. I hope that that is not true, but it may be true and it seems that it could be playing a part in recent developments.
In the inward investment battles of the 1990s, Wales will not be able to compete with the new low-cost zones of eastern Europe. Nor should we want to compete on that basis. I suggest that we concentrate, in terms of the economy, on unemployment and real wages, which are two critical indicators of well-being. They are not to be denigrated by any suggestion that Opposition Members want to talk down Wales. We need an improvement in our vocational education and training system to improve the take-up of United Kingdom and EC policies for research, development, innovation and technology transfer. We must improve the evaluation of WDA and Welsh Office initiatives.
We have too little information in those areas, an information deficit which is no small academic matter, for unless we know where Wales really stands compared with other regions of the United Kingdom, we shall be subjected to the kind of economic miracle hype that we have had for the past 10 years and are still getting.
We have made some great strides towards creating a new identity for the economy of Wales and the WDA has played a part in that. But there is still a long way to go. We can build on the great strengths that we have and I hope that the Government will ensure that the WDA continues to play a central role in that construction.
7.38 pm
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: The two interesting and analytical speeches of the hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) will be good reading for the board, chief executive and chair of the Welsh Development Agency. They pinpointed a number of issues to which I shall return, in particular about information research and the links between development and job creation and investment and higher education.
It is extremely important for the Welsh economy in connection with economic and monetary union that we move rapidly to integration in the European Community economy and society. Out of that will come stability for

1131
Wales, provided that we strengthen regional policies within the Community so that we do not become a periphery of a periphery.
Mr. Christopher Gill: While it is generally accepted that, if a single currency is adopted, a massive amount of funds will have to be transferred from the richer to the poorer countries, has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that, in the context of a wider Europe, the regions of the United Kingdom may no longer be regarded as the poorer parts of Europe? Rather, the transfer of funds would be from the northern countries to the much poorer countries of southern Europe.
Dr. Thomas: I am aware of the debate on regional policy, which is why the Opposition Members who have just spoken have all argued for strengthening the regional infrastructure rather than depending on transfer payments. I regard transfer payments as a transitional phase in regional policy because, unless a region can become more self-sustaining in terms of its development, its future cannot be guaranteed. I do not wish to enter an argument in which people say—some hon. Members seem to be expressing this view today—that investment should not take place in the southern states of the Community, new member states, or east Germany because that would disadvantage Wales. We need to ensure that all those regions have a more sustainable level of development. That is the challenge that we must face in the third generation of European regional policy.
The Welsh Development Agency allows us to have a flexible form of intervention and partnership with the market economy. It is a tribute to the nature of Welsh public policy culture that the agency and the Welsh Office, far from becoming restricted in their activity under the Conservative Government, have widened and deepened their activities. It is not sufficiently recognised by those who look at the Welsh political system from the outside that Wales has developed a distinctive way of operating. It is a kind of 1960s corporatism without some of its worst features. The tenure of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) symbolised that. The bringing together of trade unions, management, local authorities and the agencies is a feature of the scale of Wales. Bringing together those activities has enabled decisions, particularly on the location of projects, to be made faster than they have been made elsewhere.
We have already heard about the links between the regions of Europe. Wales has got in on the act because, when areas such as Cataluña were seeking a partner in the United Kingdom, its governmental infrastructure was already in place, albeit not with the democracy that exists in Cataluña with an elected Generaletat or Parliament. So it was possible for the Government of Cataluña and the other regions to relate directly to the Government of Wales in the Welsh Office. I shall ask the Minister to report hack from Cataluña later.
Our political culture has enabled us to develop internal and external infrastructure. The Welsh Development Agency has played a key role in that and has taken its particular form of partnership intervention in all sectors of our economy. I was interested in the latest development, perhaps not of post-socialism but certainly of post-Marxism, which was outlined by the hon. Member for Pontypridd when he proposed competition in the energy sector and challenged the WDA and the Welsh Office to
1132
allow it to take place. Within a residual public sector, it is important that agencies such as the WDA can play an innovative role. If the new monopolies that are created out of privatisations are not to be responsive to the needs of a smaller scale activity, the WDA should be able to intervene flexibly.
The WDA's activity in relation to multi-national capital and inward investment has been discussed at length. I shall not repeat the points that have been raised except to say that, with the current international movement of capital within the economy, it is crucial to test how effective the agency's international role has been and is. The need to target potential investors and growth sectors more accurately arises now that we are in recession.
I am particularly interested in highlighting the WDA's activity in relation to small and medium sized enterprises and the so-called "third sector"—community enterprise and co-operation. I declare an interest because of my involvement with several of those community enterprise agencies in Wales and the WDA's activities with them. The agencies work, especially its rural initiative programmes, shows how bottom-up incentive activity, which is mobilising resources and capital within the community, can lead to effective small-scale job creation. At that level and at the level of small and medium size enterprise, the technology transfer question and the development of infrastructure are particularly important. Technology transfer means not only large-scale transfers but also transfers to smaller enterprises—sometimes single, two or three-person enterprises—which can provide a stable economic growth in a peripheral niche of the economy.
An infrastructure does not mean simply the magnificent Sir Wyn Roberts' memorial tunnel at Conwy, but also the essential need to ensure that we have information technology and telecommunication networks throughout Wales. The rural development initiatives are so important because, as we look to the future, we see that it is now possible, through new technology, to establish effective businesses and communicate effectively. The development of the so-called telecommunications cottage industries is important to the peripheral areas of the Welsh economy. The WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales are keenly involved in that sector. The Minister of State and I hope to attend a conference tomorrow when I hope that he will make some announcements about that sector. In the past 10 years we have developed a network of local enterprise agencies which come together in a national organisation. There again, Welsh Office, WDA and DBRW support is crucial. Those activities have been tapping entrepreneurial resources that were not obviously present within the Welsh economy. It is important that the Welsh Office should continue to encourage that.
The international role of the agency and the Welsh Office is one of the most exciting developments of recent years. It includes the relationship between Wales and the four motor regions of Baden-Württemberg, Cataluña, Rhône-Alpes and Lombardy. That activity represents the future development of regional policy within the community—
Mr. Morgan: Was the hon. Gentleman about to confirm what I was saying, that the motor regions would not let Wales join their group because they thought that we were the exhaust pipe while they were the motor car?
Dr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Welsh Office concluded agreements on a range of activities with Baden-Württemberg and Cataluña. I understand that further agreements are to be made with another two regions. Far be it for me to speak on behalf of the Welsh Office, although I am willing to do so if called on. I am sure that the Minister of State will come back to that point when he winds up the debate, and give us a report on his latest visit to our friends in Cataluña.
Direct relationships with regions is crucial to the future regional policy within the community. As the hon. Member for Delyn said, the opening of the Brussels office was something that we proposed a long time ago in Select Committee. It shows how the structure of government in Wales, through the Welsh Office and the agency, can link directly with mainland activities in the rest of Europe. That seems to be the way in which future patterns of co-partnership investments in those regions should develop. That will lead to further diversication within the Welsh economy.
I wish to emphasise not just the networking with smaller-scale businesses and the private sector, but the need to relate the activity of the agency, to education and training. That subject has been touched on and I shall pursue it because we now have the opportunity to create for the first time an integrated education and training system for Wales. It all rests with the Welsh Office, which has responsibility for training education, including further and higher. I want the Welsh Office to develop an innovative strategy. I shall expand the point when we discuss a Bill which is not yet before the House, but is in another place. I hope that the new higher education funding council will direct its funds to sectors of innovation in research and development. I believe that the University of Wales has let us down badly over the years in terms of its so-called priorities in research and development. I speak as a graduate and postgraduate of that university.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most extraordinary claims from the Welsh education establishments and, indirectly, from the Welsh Office was to laud the decision by Imperial college, London to open a science park near Newport? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could tell me why the University of Wales did not open a science park near Newport—or anywhere else for that matter.
Dr. Thomas: I shall return to that point on Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education Bill. The University of Wales has not given sufficient priority to exploring opportunities for research and development related to the technological and economic needs of Wales. There are exceptions to that, such as research relating to the countryside and agriculture. However, I hope that the people now responsible for co-ordination of the federal structure of the university will investigate that issue; otherwise, many of us will argue that the federal structure of the university will become redundant once there is a higher education funding council.
When the new funding mechanisms—all of which are answerable to the Welsh Offce and the Secretary of State —are in place, I hope that the Welsh Office will ensure that it has a strategy and a set of priorities. One of the priorities must be to develop a better relationship between the formal education sector of further and higher education,
1134
and training and enterprise councils. I welcome the activities of the TECs, but I am worried that we are not identifying the types of skill already available sufficiently clearly as a package when we consider further education opportunities. I agree with what was said earlier about the need to be sensitive to where the available skills are located and to the fact that the regions covered by TECs may be too large. We need an integrated approach to the levels of skills.
We also need to look to the agency and its continuing role in derelict land clearance and environmental activity. I should like the agency to develop its role so that it not only clears derelict land but develops the greening of its policies. We do not want the next generation of development in Wales to damage the environment. The European Community and the Government both have green priorities, but it is essential that all new and existing projects should be subject to a full environmental audit.
Any strategy for development must be a strategy for sustainable, resource-balanced development. Green priorities must be an integral part of the agency. Greening is not additional to economic activity but an integral part of it. The cost benefits of each project and development must be related to ecological cost benefit as well as any other cost benefit calculation. Wales still lags behind in terms of environmental assessments of new projects and the effects of existing projects.
I wish now to raise a constituency matter which will come as no news to the Minister of State or to other hon. Members—an ecological problem caused at Trawsfynydd. The nuclear power station has not produced electricity since at least February. A decision will be made sooner rather than later on whether to decommission the site within the national park. Clearly, serious choices will have to be made on the decommissioning aspects and the timetabling of the decommissioning. I shall not go into them in detail now, except to say that the decommissioning and cleaning out of that site must be done to the highest environmental and safety standards, and must be done completely.
There is no way I would accept a decision to maintain radioactive materials on that site in perpetuity. Much has been made of the Welsh work force and I would not accept it if the local work force at the site were gradually made redundant without an effective programme of alternative employment. I have called on a number of occasions, and do so again, for a similar policy attitude towards electricity generation closures such as that at Trawsfynydd as we have had in the past towards steel and coal closures.
Mr. Barry Jones indicated assent.
Dr. Thomas: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones).
That district has, over a long period, had an almost mono-economy derived from the major extracting and generating industry. That employment potential will be lost and there must be a response to that. The Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency—the border cuts across the travel-to-work area of the power station—and the Welsh Office must be directly involved in the creation of alternative enterprise.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The hon. Gentleman knows of my interest in the matter. He knows that the Trawsfynydd power station has been closed down

1135
since February because of technical problems and so on. I notice that the hon. Gentleman talks about decommissioning and the severe employment problems that would ensue. Is he of the mind that the Trawsfynydd power station should be decommissioned?
Dr. Thomas: That is a matter not for me but for the nuclear installations inspectorate. It is for the Nil to decide at what stage a site licence should no longer be given to that station. I suspect that it is not far from making that decision. It is a technical and scientific decision, but clearly it has environmental implications. I make it clear that I have strongly opposed the Secretary of State's decision to establish an incinerator for low level waste on that site. Although that would deal with material from the site, it would proliferate radioactivity on the site and that is something to which we should object.
To return to the employment implications of the closure which are so relevant to the debate, I hope that when the Minister replies he will say that adequate funds will be made available. My nominated successor, Mr. Llwyd, talked about a figure of £10 million. Whatever the figure is, the Secretary of State should have an appropriate figure in mind for alternative investment. But the form of alternative investment should not be considered as another major construction project. The problem of the diseconomies in Gwynedd for major construction projects has to be tackled. The north-west and mid-Wales economies need a diversity of small and medium-scale enterprises, not a reliance on major construction work. The agency, Antur Dwyryd, whose representatives we shall be meeting tomorrow, has a particular role to play because it is a locally based enterprise agency and is well able to assist small-scale enterprises in the locality to take advantage of whatever funds may be available. The role of the WDA is to be the big partner of those smaller-scale activities. The agency is well capable of doing that and I am pleased that we shall this evening vote more funds for that activity.
8.2 pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: I should be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, but I am not particularly grateful to you for calling me after the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). Every time I listen to one of his speeches I feel obliged for good party political reasons, to find something about which to disagree with him and I find it harder on each successive occasion.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has made one of his fitful appearances in the debate. Fortunately, he is not even doing me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. It gives me no pleasure to say it, but I regard his allegations against the chairman of the WDA—trivial, footling allegations which have attracted undue publicity—as reflecting no credit on him, damaging to Wales and damaging to the causes in which we all believe.
There has been much play, particularly at the beginning of the debate, about people changing their minds. To my embarrassment. I recall speeches that I made when the WDA was first set up in 1976. I spoke about the unfulfillable expectations that it would arouse. In the end, I was glad to be proved wrong. Because of the policies that have been pursued by successive Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales, we have managed, in many senses, to
1136
have the best of both worlds. Beginning with what might be called "Walkerism" and what is now "Huntsmanship", we have had Conservative Secretaries of State who have not hesitated to make use of the limited interventionist role that the WDA can exert. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, a very different animal from what it was when it was first set up by the Labour Government.
Now that the Government have adopted a middle course, I ask myself whether, were a Labour Government ever to be returned to office, which still seems dubious, they would try to revert to their original concept of the WDA as a picker of winners and a direct player in the economic scene. Above all—this may be an even graver worry—Governments and Government bodies are not very good at picking winners, but they are even worse at trying to save losers.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and I went through a common experience. He was the leader and I merely gave him what support I could in trying to prevent the closure of the steelmaking plant at Shotton. I find it hard to rid myself of the belief that, equipped with an agency such as the WDA, a Labour Government would be unable to resist demands to save jobs at all costs. Yet the hon. Gentleman and I now know perfectly well that the diversification of the Deeside economy has turned out to be pretty nearly an unmixed blessing for the area.
My worry is that, if a Labour Government were to revert to a more directly interventionist role for the WDA, we would soon have demands to save existing jobs at all costs. I know the pressures on any constituency Member of Parliament to fight like a dog for any job that is threatened in his area. One could not blame a Government who gave in to such pressures, but it would be dangerous. It is important, therefore, that we try to remain on the centre ground of a limited role for the WDA which it carries out admirably. How well it carries it out is shown by the jealousy demonstrated on each and every occasion by English Members of Parliament when they ask why they cannot have an English development agency. That seems to suggest something.
I have good reason to be grateful to the WDA and, in particular, to its chairman. I have not had, certainly not in my present constitutency, problems of dereliction or even problems arising from the massive transition from smokestack industries to modern industries with the consequent mass unemployment. But I have had devastation in the form of the Towyn floods, when I had every possible reason to be grateful to the WDA for the way in which it came in and, together with the Secretary of State, assumed leadership in a community which was badly demoralised by the appalling blow that had befallen it.
Had there been no instruments ready to co-ordinate the renewal of economic activity, it would have taken much longer to get that area back on its feet. In the end, as a result of some well-targeted operations by the WDA, in conjuction with local enterprise, the environment in the Towyn area is noticeably better that it was even before the floods. For that, I am grateful to Dr. Gwyn Jones, the WDA and its officers.
However, I have one query about the operation of the agency. I recognise that it is right that it should operate commercially and seek to maximise its returns. I am a little concerned that it is in some cases increasing the rents at a

1137
substantially higher rate than that of inflation, thereby conceivably placing in danger the future existence of firms that the agency itself helped to create.
The agency and the use that three successive Secretaries of State for Wales have made of it are just about on the right lines. I reject the Thatcherite-Marxist analysis of society—that only economic forces are determinant of conduct. On the contrary, I believe that there is a role for the individual, and that the individual can turn a situation around. The last two Secretaries of State in particular are conspicuous examples of that. I regard Dr. Gwyn Jones as being very much in the same mould.
I am delighted to support tonight this hotly contested Second Reading and I wish well of the agency and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the use that he makes of it.
8.10 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: We all strongly support the work of the Welsh Development Agency and generally want it to have more resources and to be ever-more involved in all our areas.
I was asked by the farmers' unions and the prospective parliamentary Labour candidate for Pembroke, Mr. Nick Grainger, to make a few remarks about the problems of abattoirs in rural areas. The abattoir at Withybush has invested £40 million in modernisation and now faces a further £250,000 investment to bring it up to European standards by 5 January 1993. Its problems are shared by more than 50 Welsh abattoirs.
Of the 60 abattoirs in Wales, only four meet European standards. According to the Meat and Livestock Commission, only 27 have modernisation plans, and only 14 of those are remotely likely to execute them. If the abattoirs are not licensed by 1993, they will be compelled to close—and there would be far fewer buyers for farmers. The export of live animals would also increase. Already, one half of Welsh lambs are exported live, and that is an unsatisfactory and cruel trade. I cannot understand why the Welsh Development Agency or the Welsh Office cannot help those abattoirs to modernise. That major problem will indirectly hit farmers' incomes, as well as rural employment. It is difficult to find major employers in rural areas, where abattoirs are an important source of jobs.
Wales would be left exporting raw materials, in terms of live lambs and calves, but it would be much better if the livestock was all slaughtered in Wales, then exported. The creation of value-added industries such as meat processing would also be welcome.
In Mid-Wales the Development Board for Rural Wales has unofficially helped the firm in Llanidloes with its £1 million modernisation programme, but I would like the WDA and the Welsh Office to consider broadening that kind of assistance as a matter of urgency. I know that they are lobbied by many other people, but they cannot sit and do nothing while abattoirs go out of business. That would be bad for the rural economy and rural jobs and for farmers' incomes. Surely the WDA should be allowed to become involved as the DBRW is.
As to the agency's more general work, we in Dyfed would like it to be more involved. My area is on the western fringes of Wales, and from Port Talbot and
1138
Glamorgan westwards, it is difficult to attract major inward investment. The area also needs more factory buildings.
Dyfed has more than 10 per cent. of the population of Wales and more than 10 per cent. of its unemployment, but in terms of factory buildings, only 5 per cent. of the WDA's resources are invested in Dyfed. That prompted complaints by Dyfed county council's industrial development department, which has time and again exerted pressure on the agency to increase its activity in our part of the world.
Amman valley has particular problems. It is a major unemployment black spot, with many rural communities suffering unemployment of more than 20 per cent. It is over 50 per cent. in the village of Garnant. That is as bad as anywhere in south Wales. Dyfed commissioned, in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, a report by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte on unemployment in the Amman and Gwendraeth valleys and what could be done to reduce it. They concluded that there would have to be investment in road links to the M4, particularly to Ammanford and the Amman valley, and an examination of the coal industry.
That matter was commented on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). The Amman and Gwendraeth valleys have 50 million tonnes of high-quality, low-sulphur anthracite, which has a ready, high-value market. However, we do not want that anthracite to be extracted by opencast mining.
Sir Wyn Roberts: Regional selective assistance is available for mining ventures, if they meet the RSA criteria. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in September such assistance for Anglesey Mining, with the creation of 147 jobs. As part of the package for small firms that we announced in August, RSA was extended to Pentre colliery for the exploitation of coal reserves. Regional selective assistance is available, provided that the criteria are met.
Mr. Williams: I am pleased to hear those comments, but I had in mind something much broader. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has frequently said that west Wales would like British Coal to establish a small mines company. As British Coal will not do so, will the WDA consider our 50 million tonnes of anthracite and develop environmentally acceptable ways of exploiting and developing those resources, which would be proactive in that the industry could create jobs for a few thousand people?
The Capel Hendre industrial estate is just two miles from the end of the M4, so it is ideally located for major industrial development. The borough of Dinefwr, which is responsible for Amman valley, is placing great store by developments that could be attracted to that site. I was delighted to see Dinefwr develop last year, in partnership with the Welsh Development Agency, a £3·8 million project. We badly need a major internal investor. The Amman valley has lost nearly 2,000 jobs over the past two or three years, at Abernant and Betws. Those jobs must be replaced, and I hope that Capel Hendre, with 50 per cent. involvement by the WDA, will help to create the employment that the area so desperately needs.
8.19 pm
Mr. Peter Hain: I apologise for my absence at the beginning of the debate; I was serving on the Standing Committee considering the Competition and Service (Utilities) Bill.
For all its limitations, some of which have been identified in the debate, the WDA has been a success story —a story begun by the Labour party in 1975, and continued by successive Conservative Secretaries of State since 1979. I pay tribute to those Secretaries of State, who include the current Secretary of State for Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) referred to rumours of a hidden agenda to dismember the WDA and hive off, at the least, its property sales activities. I hope that those rumours do not prove correct, since such action would be folly indeed. The Scots, for example, are deeply envious of the WDA, and would like a similarly enterprising agency of their own.
In many respects, the agency has, through its success, defied the laws of Thatcherism. It has certainly defied the laws of the No Turning Back group, of which the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), is still a member. As the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), to whose speech I listened with interest, pointed out, the agency has undertaken the public sector pump priming of the Welsh economy that has been so crucial in the 12 bitter years since 1979.
That pump priming has been especially important following the cuts in regional aid that have taken effect over the past few years. No doubt the Minister will recall the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd by the Secretary of State on Tuesday 26 November about the regional aid cuts in the valleys programme area. Such significant cuts should be properly explained.
Regional development grant, which is especially important to the valley areas, has been cut from £17·2 million in 1988–89 to a derisory £6·9 million. Cuts have also been made in regional selective assistance. The overall cuts in regional aid have been astonishing: it has been cut from £28·9 million in 1988–89 to barely £14·5 million in 1990–91. In just two years, regional aid has been halved, and compensation in the form of regional support elsewhere does not appear to have been provided. The regional enterprise grants introduced two years ago have hardly managed to creep up from a small £0·1 million to a—still small—£0·5 million. I hope that the Minister will explain how he proposes to fill the gap in regional assistance to the valley areas.
Let me now say a little about my constituency, Neath. As I have told the WDA's chairman, Dr. Gwyn Jones, if I have a criticism of the agency, it concerns the lack of inward investment in Neath. There has been plenty elsewhere in south Wales, especially around the M4 corridor, and I pay tribute to the agency for that, but, as the agency has conceded, there has been none recently in Neath. The WDA's property development programme for 1991–92, of which I have a copy, does not mention Neath; it makes no reference to property sales or property development portfolios held by the agency there. I trust that this will be the last year in which Neath is omitted. I know that representations have been made to the WDA, not only by me but by Neath borough council.
My constituency—not just the Neath valley, but the Swansea valley and the part of the Amman valley that falls
1140
within it—desperately needs inward investment. For that reason, I invited Dr. Gwyn Jones to visit the constituency on 11 September. I escorted him around a series of prime industrial sites in Cadoxton, Blaenant, Aberpurgwm and other parts of the Neath valley that are crying out for inward investment, and have traditionally enjoyed the benefits of enterprising industrial activity.
Whatever other areas the WDA chairman may have visited over the past few months, he can have encountered no more exotic venues than those to be found in the Dulais and Neath valleys,—places such as Banwen, Crynant, Resolven and Glynneath. Those areas are very attractive in terms of inward investment, and I hope that, when the chairman considers what his visit has achieved, he will decide to ensure that my constituency receives the investment to which it is entitled.
There is, however, a problem of access to the Neath valley, in particular, because of the missing link on the A465, which has been neglected for more than 15 years. I know that the Secretary of State is aware of that, and I am grateful for the way in which, since the summer—when we discussed the matter—he has hurried through some of the planning issues, and hastened the day when work will begin on building the road up the Neath valley and thus creating an artery that will attract inward investment. The people of Neath very much appreciate the way in which he has cleared away many of the planning obstacles.
Nevertheless, I was disappointed that the Minister of State's announcement yesterday to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs apparently did not include the A465 missing link in the programme of new roads for Wales in 1992–93. I understand that £195 million is to be spent next year in the programme, and it is worrying that the missing link has not been included.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I am speaking without my notes, but I believe that I said yesterday that we would be involved in the start of work on that section of the A465.
Mr. Hain: If that is so, I am delighted. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that; as a Welsh speaker, he will know that the Eisteddfod is coming to Neath in 1994. It will be held just below Glynneath. If the missing link is in place by then, it will make an enormous difference to the event, and to the prosperity of the valley.
The agency's dynamism is also needed in respect of coal production and investment: that is equally important to my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd made many important points in that regard. I understand that the Welsh Office is now studying a very exciting investment initiative, and I hope that the Minister can give me some assurances about it.
Ryan Mining International has presented an investment proposition. It wishes to establish a new project in the vale of Neath, which will bring at least 600 direct jobs to the area, and many more indirect jobs. The project involves £18 million-worth of investment; it will be environmentally sensitive and very attractive generally. It will hide much of the infrastructure that surrounds mining areas, landscaping it behind environmentally attractive "curtains".
Above all, it will ensure that the heavy lorry traffic that passes through our valleys is taken off the roads and transferred to the railways by reopening the Vale of Neath railway link and taking the coal straight from the Pentreclwydau line—which it is proposed to reopen—

1141
alongside Ryan's existing mines at Rheola, Lyn and Venallt. The coal from that attractive integrated mining project will be taken down the Vale of Neath railway directly to Cardiff docks or conceivably to Aberthaw power station.
Ryans has applied to the Welsh Office for a grant of 80 per cent. of the £6·7 million that it will cost to create the infrastructure. That excludes reopening Pentreclwydau pit, which it will finance. I hope that the Welsh Office will look favourably on its application for £5·3 million, which, I understand, meets all the Welsh Office's criteria.
The Neath valley and the surrounding valleys have some of the finest anthracite in the world. It is clean and has a low sulphur content, and its abstraction would be of enormous benefit not only to my constituents and the local community but the south Wales economy.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd that Ryan has shown more imagination and dynamism than British Coal in the past few years. British Coal has seemed almost enthusiastic about closing every south Wales pit, and the last pit in the Neath constituency—Blaenant—closed last July. It is significant that Ryans made a bid to keep the pit open, but, despite the fact that it would get a fat profit from it, British Coal refused. I can only conclude that British Coal does not want competition to show up its traditional inadequacies and failure to provide a future for coal mining, particularly an industry that is environmentallly sensitive and that respects local communities, as the Vale of Neath project will.
Valleys such as Neath—my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made this point well earlier—need a distinctive strategy. It is not sufficient to treat the south Wales economy as though it were simply the M4 corridor and, welcome though it is, to congregate inward investment around the motorway. The valley areas must not be regarded as commuter areas for new plants and manufacturing companies. Although it is a rather fanciful notion in view of the class base of the valley, I have heard it argued seriously that the valleys could be yuppified and become commuter belts for the M4 corridor.
That is not a serious strategy for the valley communities. The WDA and the Welsh Office must devise a distinctive economic strategy for them. After all, they are attrative areas, yet their traditional skills are wasting away. They are environmentally attractive, particularly for modern high-technology manufacturing investment. Experience in Europe and America shows that such investment often is attracted to rural sites that offer an environmentally sensitive location.
The valleys communities have a history of industrial activity that is waiting to be taken forward into the next century. I hope that the WDA will look at the success of areas such as Baden-Wurttemberg in West Germany, where public sector initiatives and the power of government and public intervention work in partnership with the private sector to provide roads, education, housing and the local environment and all its facilities and the skills and research for technology transfer to achieve the skills base that is necessary to attract manufacturing investment.
The WDA must provide grant aid or allowances to ensure that we keep the Welsh economy to the fore not
1142
only of the British economy but of the new emerging European economy. We need capital allowances to assist with manufacturing investment in the valleys.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say, if I understood him properly, that there was no WDA involvement in his constituency. I have a list of 26 WDA investments in Neath, worth £884,000. Furthermore, we are well aware of the Ryan Mining International project.
Mr. Hain: I am glad that the Minister is well aware of Ryan's application, and I hope that he speeds it through the processes of the Welsh Office. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me—I do not blame him for that—because I specifically said that there had been no inward investment. I freely acknowledge that there has been plenty of WDA activity, for which I am grateful, but no inward investment from foreign companies such as we have seen elsewhere in south Wales. Moreover, the property development programme does not refer to Neath, despite the fact that it has many ideal sites that the WDA either owns or could develop.
Sir Wyn Roberts: My understanding is that since April 1983, Welsh Development International, which was previously WINvest, has secured eight projects generating £22·64 million worth of investment in the Neath area. But I shall look into it further.
Mr. Hain: I hope that the Minister of State will look into it further. He will find, as the chairman of the WDA conceded, that there has been no major inward investment in recent years, although I acknowledge that it has come in bits and bobs over the years. That issue must be addressed.
Ryan's application is a welcome and exciting attempt to use the potential that still exists for coal extraction in the coal valleys and elsewhere in the valleys, but we are entering into what I would describe as a post-mining culture and need a distinctive economic agenda as we proceed into a new century. The Welsh Office does not show sufficient understanding of the need for that new agenda, but the gap must be filled urgently. I hope that the WDA will consider that and the future of the top of the valleys, which are often neglected and are decaying. They need sensitive investment to ensure that they have a future in their own right and do not simply become commuter belts for elsewhere.
8.38 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: This has been a good and constructive debate. It has been one of those rare and valuable debates when several of my hon. Friends and a number of Conservative Members have made positive and thoughtful speeches. I refer particularly to the hon. Members for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), of whom it is characteristic, and for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who described himself as slightly demob happy today. The one jarring note came from the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) who, I regret, was both churlish and smug in his contribution. It was sad to have that approach brought to the debate in that it illustrated the way in which some Conservatives appear increasingly shrill and divisive. All that we heard from the hon. Gentleman was cheap nonsense—he made no positive contribution to the debate. We heard of his experience on parliamentary missions abroad—I must say that if he

1143
believes that two days in Tahiti is equivalent to a coffee break, I hope that that does not say anything the way in which he approaches his working day. His contribution was an exception to the nature and tone of the debate.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I was slightly puzzled by the equivalence between the hotel in Tahiti and the Membury service station. Clearly, there has been a marked rise in the standards at the Membury service station since I was last there. [Laughter.]
Mr. Michael: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman shares the puzzlement of my colleagues about that contribution.
I want to pick up some comments and contributions but, first, I pay tribute to the Labour Members of Parliament and Ministers who made the debate possible. We recognise the value of the Welsh Development Agency and welcome the fact that that is not a point of contention although it must be remembered that it was established by a Labour Government and that the Conservative party opposed it. That experience is repeated elsewhere—it is something of a tradition for the Conservative party to oppose and criticise efforts to encourage enterprise. I had the same experience when I and others—including councillor Paddy Kitson and people such as Arthur Gilbert and David Davies from the private sector—planned the establishment of Cardiff and Vale Enterprise. It has since been a great success and is now supported by the Conservative party and, indeed, by Ministers.
Sir Wyn Roberts indicated dissent
Mr. Michael: The Minister seeks to cast doubt on that, but I assure him that it was opposed most vigorously by the Conservative party on Cardiff city council, not by Conservatives in the Welsh Office. It was good that, at the end of the day, the Conservatives in Cardiff came to recognise the value of the organisation and to support it.
A little anger is sometimes caused when the Conservatives claim to be the party of business because in recent years it has pursued economic policies that have damaged industry and business. That neglect of economic policies has undermined the manufacturing industry in particular. Above all, it has done enormous damage to small local and family businesses in Wales. There was an example of that yesterday—I refer to the Government's decision not to pursue large businesses that break the law which gave a terrible example of unfairness. Firms which want to obey and observe the law as it has been passed in Parliament are being squeezed and pressed, in order to maintain their market share, to follow those which have less respect for the law. There is also pressure on employees as a result of that.
I set the context against which the WDA undertakes its work by the mention of legality. I must also say that the work of the police and the increasing crime in Wales is a considerable problem for business. There has been an increase of about 22 per cent. in crime in the south Wales police area, and I was absolutely appalled to learn today that the Government's decision to increase policing in some forces includes not one additional policeman in answer to the modest request for 44 by the south Wales police. That is an appalling decision, especially when one increasingly finds—as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends do—that business men are concerned about break-ins and problems that must be dealt with in their communities. There has been a scandalous undermining of
1144
the situation, and the decision will not help businesses in Wales any more than it will help the law-abiding communities in every part of Wales.
Against the background of the WDA's work one must consider the Government's failure to ensure that all European money is brought in that is available to help the economy of south Wales. I think the estimate that has been given is of about £100 million in regard to RECHAR. A number of my hon. Friends have commented on that. There is much concern about the fact that Wales is not obtaining assistance from Europe which should be available to it and about the withholding of RECHAR assistance for mining areas and of other forms of assistance.
It is not only the valleys that lose out. We must consider the levels of unemployment in our cities and urban areas. Cardiff, Central's unemployment rate of 15·1 per cent. is the highest of any Welsh constituency. The chairman of the city council's economic development committee—Councillor Jon Jones—has drawn attention to that fact as something which
"will he sure to shock people."
It has certainly shocked us to discover that that was the situation, especially when one recognises that the constituency with the second worse unemployment is Cardiff, West with a rate of 13·2 per cent. Cardiff, South and Penarth registers eighth place in the worst in Wales table.
One of the problems with which I hope the Minister will deal in his response is that the work of different agencies —including the WDA, local authorities and everyone else—will be undermined if assistance from Europe is taken away. There is a danger that Cardiff will not he regarded as an area in severe need of assistance—which it certainly is—and that it may miss out when the Commission and the European Parliament undertake their review of current assistance areas. The European regional development fund under Objective II provides funding to areas in industrial decline for improvement to their infrastructure. Traditionally, selected areas of Cardiff have benefited from that scheme and our worry is that the major review of funding announced earlier this year may lead to a redrawing of the map and to assistance to Cardiff being cut in favour of other parts of Europe. For that to happen, when the figures show all too clearly the dire need in central Cardiff for more investment in business and jobs, would be to undermine the situation and would be greatly to the detriment of the work undertaken by the WDA and others.
One must underline the levels of unemployment that have to be tackled in Wales: Swansea, West has an unemployment rate of more than 13 per cent.; Ynys Môn and Rhondda more than 12 per cent; Cynon Valley, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, Torfaen and Newport, West are well over the 11 per cent. mark. Unemployment is still a major problem to be tackled. In recognising the efforts made locally and by the WDA, it would be unwise not to stress the continuing major problems experienced by communities throughout Wales.
Some of my hon. Friends and, indeed, the hon. Member for Delyn referred to the railway system. We desperately need a link to the channel tunnel but, at the moment, we are about to see the ending of the last train from Paddington to south Wales which has particular relevance tonight for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). We need a later train up to London from

1145
south Wales, which would encourage the entertainment business and the tourist industry in south Wales. We need a rail link to Cardiff Wales airport, similarly for the benefit of economic development in the whole region. That idea has been pursued with vigour by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) but it is relevant for the wider region of south Wales. The lack of spending on the infrastructure—especially on rail—when our European competitors who are much closer to the heart of Europe are galloping away from us and making such investment is of great concern.
One of the most important factors for businesses—both new and expanding, whether inward or home grown industries—is the importance of good advice. In that respect, the work of the WDA in conjunction with local agencies is very important. Recently, we have witnessed a massive increase in the number of European grant consultancy firms who suggest that significant grants are available from the European Commission. Usually for a fixed fee of several hundred pounds, the consultancy undertakes to find grants for which a business is eligible and a money-back guarantee is often offered. The information often provided by some of the firms is generally available free of charge from a number of official organisations, including the EC office in Wales, the Welsh Office exports branch, larger enterprise agencies, the Wales Euro Information Centre and the European Business Centre in Cardiff as well as through the advisory work of the WDA. It is not uncommon or unreasonable to charge for research services undertaken on a client's behalf, but the businesses concerned often develop unrealistic expectations of their chances of obtaining grant aid and can be disappointed by their subsequent failure to obtain grant moneys. I have been told of one company, now in liquidation I believe, which, not only provided irrelevant information, but defaulted on repaying the initial fee charged, despite offering a money-back, no-risk guarantee.
That is a worrying activity. The question of such consultancies has been raised in the European Parliament in Strasbourg by the Member of the European Parliament for south Wales, Mr. Wayne David. I ask the Minister of State to note the concern, and to agree that what is needed is a partnership between bodies such as the Welsh Office and the WDA, and local authorities and local enterprise agencies, to provide a one-stop shop which would make such advice available. Then people could be certain that they were getting neutral, objective advice, and being told the hard truth as well as the encouraging possibilities. There should be a partnership among bodies with expertise in Wales to provide such information. This is not an area in which the opening up of competition is helpful.
We must consider the work of local authorities in Wales. I was rather sad that although the Secretary of State gave credit to the Welsh work force—and then to himself and to the WDA—he failed to put the local authorities at the top of his list of bodies deserving considerable credit for success in finding inward investment. Bosch, Japanese investment, and organisations such as the Chemical Bank, British Airways and a number of others have come to south Wales because of the hard work of local authorities, which often takes place behind the scenes and is in partnership with the WDA and the Government.
1146
The Minister will note that I mention the Welsh Office specifically. It would come better from Ministers to speak of the achievements of the Welsh Office and the WDA if they gave the same credit to the local authorities in south Wales that those authorities give to the help that they receive from bodies such as the WDA. I hope that the Minister will respond generously on that subject.
Credit should also be given to the Wales TUC. As I said in an intervention, I was sad at some of the comments made earlier about that body. Like local authorities, the Wales TUC has recognised that the real key to success in that area is partnership, and every report from organisations such as Cardiff and Vale Enterprise, of which I remain a director, gives credit to the co-operation of the WDA and refers, often in fulsome terms, to Welsh Office money or money from the European Commission. Local authorities, enterprise agencies and others work, too, with bodies established by the Government in Wales, including even the development corporation. I underline the role of the local authorities, for example, in the redevelopment of central Cardiff, where partnership with the private sector was so important.
We must recognise the initiatives that can be taken by local organisations. Against that background we need to consider the way in which the WDA should be working to strengthen the Welsh economy. There has been much discussion recently of procedures and processes, and there has been criticism of the way in which the WDA has done certain things. Those matters should be investigated and the systems must be put straight. The people at the head of the WDA must recognise that they are not operating in a private company. Public money is involved, so the standards of care and accountability required in public life must be observed at every stage. We also need stability within the WDA. There is some concern that the many changes in recent years may have led to an element of instability in decision making.
Those are serious points, but it is also important that we do not weaken the agency's credibility both inside and outside Wales. The best way to strengthen that is for the agency to be open to criticism, ready to put its house in order and to discuss the way forward with everyone else concerned. Monitoring techniques in job creation have always been difficult. Monitoring is not easy and needs care. We worked very hard on deciding which method to use in Cardiff and Vale Enterprise, and came to the conclusion that we should always attribute the minimum to the work of the agency and credit the maximum to other agencies involved in any partnership work. That gives credibility and authority to the figures released. I suppose that I am recommending what might be described as a conservative estimate—although nowadays it would be odd to use that expression, because modesty does not appear to be part of the job description for Secretaries of State in this Administration.
Part of the problem was caused by pressure from the Secretary of State's predecessor and others for high figures that could be trumpeted in presenting the achievements of the WDA. What is needed is a more sober and reasonable assessment of what is being achieved and targeted.
In recent pronouncements we have heard described four objectives of the WDA. The first is to attract new inward investment. That is all right but, to expand on the idea, we need to target that inward investment and to take a realistic look at the potential of different forms of inward

1147
investment for building the economy rather than simply considering the raw numbers of jobs created in the first days following the investment.
The objective is to work with existing businesses in Wales to promote economic development. I hope that that would include working with such businesses to help them expand and to encourage their activities, not simply seeking to involve them in the economic development of the area. More must be done to help our own indigenous businesses.
The third objective was to generate environmental improvements by land reclamation, and the fourth was to promote economic development in rural and urban areas. The debate shows that there are many good ideas around, and many positive contributions that could be made if the partnership and decision making is taken to a local level.
I pay tribute to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has ministerial experience in such matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who brings a fresh approach to the problems of his valley, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who made a cogent contribution early in the debate. Each of them described the creativity in their communities in the valleys, which could be harnessed to develop the local economies. They were examining real needs, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), who spoke of the importance of abattoirs to the rural economy. My first experience in local authority was to be put on the abattoir committee in Cardiff in 1973. I do not envy anybody who has to tackle that activity, whether at the practical or at the economic level. My hon. Friend is right to stress its importance and I hope that we shall have a positive response from the Minister.
I hope that the WDA will listen to my hon. Friends' points and will accept that there is a need to be adventurous and imaginative, while also being rooted in the communities for which my colleagues have spoken.
I especially enjoyed the thought-provoking and imaginative speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). The Minister may agree that my hon. Friend showed an ability to think laterally, which is what we need to tackle the enormous problems that we face in Wales. He was very much to the point in his comments on training funds. I am not sure that I agree with him on the idea of hiving off the land and property of the WDA. There is much to be said for a one-stop shop in these matters and there is much to be said for the body that is responsible for job creation looking at the various job creation factors in relation to property and to the development of land rather than looking at matters only from the point of view of letting. The criticism might be that the WDA has been pushed too far by Government policy into looking too commercially at its lettings rather than looking at developing the job creation potential in its decision making. We come together on the target and the argument needs to be pursued in considering how we develop the work of the WDA.
We need to consider a number of points about inward investment. The figures to which I referred have caused problems because recent audit reports suggest that the WDA claims a high proportion of inward investment, and that it includes moves from England and expansion in plants that were once inward investment. There is a need to examine objectively the validity of the figures, not as
1148
matters of debate or point scoring, but to enable us to be precise about the facts with which we are dealing in our debates.
We keep hearing that there is a big push on at the Welsh Office to create links with the European motor regions, such as Baden-Wüurttemberg, Cataluña, Rhône-Alpes and Lombardy, to which several hon. Members have referred. We need more information about the pay-back so far and about the quantifiable measures that will judge the success of those policies. We are not talking about a background of specific objectives. I remind the Minister that the contacts with the motor regions build very much on links forged by south Wales local authorities over many years. The investment in time by local authorities, especially in the case of Baden-Würrttemberg, has made it possible to look at the policy from the Welsh Office point of view.
The opening of a European office is to be welcomed, although we need to know about the mechanisms for disseminating the benefits back in Wales. How will that relate to the European activities of other organisations, such as the local authorities that make use of European funds?
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, by 1988, 75 per cent. of Japan's overseas investment was in non-manufacturing activities. What is being done to attract that market to Wales? What analysis is the WDA making of the potential there? Targeting is an important part of the question. I suggest that it is not just a numbers game of how many jobs can be attracted. We need to look at the areas of real potential because there is a danger of missing opportunities.
One example is the supply of parts and materials to incoming industries. We should consider the mistakes made in the United States and elsewhere. The Minister may be aware that in America imports, accounting for almost 30 per cent. of the United States car market, along with cars produced by United States based transplants, have swallowed more than half the American car market. The United States autoparts trade deficit with Japan is heading up to $12 billion from $3 billion five years ago. According to one study, it would hit $22 billion by 1994. That is relevant to Wales. In some cases, our indigenous industries find difficulty in getting a fair share of supplying the industries that have come in. That is important with the industries that have come in with the declared policy of encouraging local suppliers. Bosch and some of the Japanese industries have come in with that stated aim.
The problem that has been experienced in America is that, over time, those doors close. The opportunity may be there for a period, but it needs to be seized. If it is not seized, it may disappear. A University of Michigan study of the supplying of one Honda transplant found that 38 per cent. of the components had been manufactured in Japan, 46 per cent. by Japanese transplant suppliers and 16 per cent. by United States suppliers. The Americans are protesting about that.
It would be silly to moan and blame Japanese companies or the incoming Bosch firms. We need partnerships to be formed in Wales and for the WDA to work positively to help our own companies, and to help the creation of home-grown industries where necessary, in order to seize the opportunity. That must be done with a positive approach. It will not just happen accidentally, and it should not be taken for granted. We need to concentrate on supply and secondary manufacture in partnership in that way. One of my worries is that there seems to be a

1149
broad-brush approach from the WDA about its intentions and hopes. We need to see some of those things brought down to very specific intentions which are agreed and developed in partnership, and very specifically, with local authorities, enterprise agencies and others.
Another point is the need for the WDA to respond to change. The problems of the recession have perhaps not been met sufficiently. There was a little bit of an exchange about advance factories. Some Conservative Members were dismissive of the contribution that was made. However, is it right that the WDA should still concentrate on building bespoke factories? I understand the argument that advance factories frighten off the private sector, but the private sector is not building at the moment, certainly in many areas of Wales. Is not this just the time when the WDA should be flexible enough to step up advance factory programmes, in a property slump, and enable Wales to be prepared and ready to take whatever opportunities are available?
The Secretary of State made a passing mention of indigenous companies. That is where I want to concentrate the emphasis. We have seen in Wales over the years a loss of headquarters companies. We have seen the importance of headquarters companies which are in Wales. In particular, I pay tribute to ASW—Allied Steel and Wire —in my constituency. It is an excellent company which works with the community, not to advertise itself or ingratiate itself but because it sees itself as an integral part of that community. It sees itself as a part not only of the business community but of the whole community in Cardiff, and indeed of a wider area of south Wales. Its approach to the recession was shown by the way in which the chairman and top management took a cut as they saw the recession coming on. That showed the way in which they wanted to make sure that the business prospered and was able to cope with the recession. That is in contrast, for instance, with organisations such as Welsh Water, which did not approach the onset of the recession in the same way.
There is a need for concentration on our indigenous companies. There is a need for the WDA to move decision making to a more local level so that partnerships with local authorities, private companies, chambers of commerce and so on can be made more fruitful and effective. We hear too much about the headquarters and international aspects of the WDA and not enough about the local work of the WDA, which, of course, is the aspect on which virtually every one of my hon. Friends concentrated.
The next point is the importance of training and enterprise education. Even supporters of the idea of establishing TECs feel that they are not moving quickly enough. We recognised the problem that they faced immediately they were established—that is, immediate cuts in their finances—but we need skills, we need the skills audit to be developed, and we need a partnership between different aspects of government, local and national, to tackle that serious difficulty. We need also to support start-ups. That matter has gone off the agenda in recent times, although many of us have spent much time on it and the Minister of State's predecessor took a leading role in some of the discussions about seven or eight years ago. We need to remind ourselves of the importance of this matter
1150
and the significant contribution that it has made to creating new jobs in Wales in recent years. That is something that can happen only at a local level.
I have something of a reservation about the report "Skills and Enterprise: An Agenda for Wales" that was published the other day. It seems to suggest a worrying transfer of influence, which could turn into a power, to the WDA. That is all the more worrying when local authorities are sometimes unwilling to take a stand on justifiable issues because they fear that, if they stand up to the WDA on one issue, that might jeopardise their joint working on another venture. To see the WDA extending its influence into training makes one feel that it is tending to become a mini Welsh Office. Perhaps the Minister of State should look out for his job if the WDA further extends its role.
That report makes scant mention of the role of the local authorities, which still have a big part to play in training, and which will have a residual role even if the Government go ahead with their crazy idea of removing colleges from local authority control. Local voluntary organisations, such as the Women Workshop, compacts and in-house company training provide training opportunities in various parts of Wales.
The report also leaves one with little confidence that anything other than lip service is being paid to the needs of unemployed and disadvantaged people. That matter should have been one of the major headings rather than the subject of passing references on, I believe, page 13 and in the appendix.
Not enough is being done at the moment to provide employment and training for adults with learning difficulties. I have been involved with the work of the computer workshop in Colleg Glan Hafren where we have seen the way in which a real contribution to employment can be made if proper training and opportunities are offered.
I pay tribute to South Glamorgan county council for recognising the need to establish training places to enable people to work on from their placement to a real job from which, in the longer term, they can find permanent employment with the local authority. We need such a means of moving people from a placement into full employment. I recognise that that is not an easy thing to manage and it needs considerably greater encouragement than it is given at the moment.
I was sad to find that one organisation which deals with adults with learning difficulties in my constituency had been left high and dry by the company that was its contracted trainer. Although there was no longer any contract to provide training, the managers and the trainees at Track 2000 in Splott continue to attend voluntarily—the trainees do not receive their training allowance—and the social services are still referring adults with learning difficulties to that organisation although it had fallen off the agenda locally.
I ask the Minister of State to take note of that example and to find the best possible way of ensuring that, in the present economic difficulties, people with disabilities of all descriptions do not get lost once again, as has happened all too often in the past. We must remind ourselves of the importance of creating a training opportunity for people with disabilities. That is why I ask the Minister of State, in his response, to agree that he will look specifically at that point——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): As the House knows, debates can range widely on Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the purpose of the Bill.
Mr. Michael: I take your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I referred to those points because the document that was published this week referred to an increased training role for the Welsh Development Agency, especially in relation to those aspects of training.
It is important that training is developed in partnership and that the WDA recognises the role of other bodies and does not take on too strong a role for itself in developing employment training initiatives.
The WDA recently stated that over 400 of the factory units that it owns in Wales are currently unoccupied. While that is undoubtedly a sign of the depth of the recession in Wales, the Government should ensure that every effort is made by the agency to let those properties and get people into work.
The work of the WDA cannot be viewed in isolation from the general economic climate and the way in which it affects the Welsh economy. In the past year, unemployment in Wales has risen by more than 37 per cent. Business failures have risen by almost 90 per cent. Average earnings in Wales are lower than in any other region of Britain, with 40 per cent. of adult full-time employees earning less than £2 per hour.
A Labour Government would work with the WDA to create a climate which would enable business to prosper in Wales. We shall give serious consideration to making available new sources of investment and finance for growing Welsh firms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said, we must tackle the skills shortages that prevent many Welsh companies from expanding. In consultation with the WDA and higher education institutions, we shall investigate the establishment of Welsh technology trusts to work with small businesses to improve the quality of technology transfer and access to it.
Growth, common sense and, above all, partnership are the qualities that a Labour Government will bring to Wales and to the work of the WDA in Wales and for Wales. Business in Wales, like the people of Wales, needs that day to come quickly.
9.15 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): We have had a thoughtful and therefore helpful debate. Seldom have I found myself more in sympathy, if not in agreement, with the views expressed by Opposition Members, especially when it seemed that they were edging towards coal privatisation. Perhaps the prospect of an election concentrates the minds of hon. Gentlemen. However, I must not be too provocative. It is abundantly clear from what has been said that there is widespread approval for the work of the Welsh Development Agency and for giving it adequate resources to carry out its task.
The WDA has played a full and vigorous part in transforming the outlook for the Welsh economy, but, of course, much remains to be done. Through its wide range of services, including the provision of modern industrial floor space, the supply of financial and technological advice and the attraction of inward investment, the WDA has done much to help bring about the transformation that we have witnessed in Wales. But the agency is not standing
1152
still. Increasingly, its emphasis is on becoming a catalyst, a facilitator and a pump primer to stimulate private sector enterprise and investment.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and the origins of the agency. In an intervention, I mentioned the change that we wrought on that body in 1980. The Government have indeed given the WDA an expanding role and a new dynamism. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, Noth-West (Sir A. Meyer) and others would like to be reminded of some of the facts. The current budget of £160 million is an all-time high in both cash and real terms. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, next year's budget will be even higher, at £166·75 million. We are spending more in cash terms on the WDA in one year than was spent during the whole of its time under Labour between 1976 and 1979. We have spent more on factories than the Labour party did. We are spending more on clearing derelict land. The average allocation under this Government for land reclamation is 30 per cent. higher than under the previous Labour Administration.
Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that the Minister will deal with the facts of the budget in a moment, but I wish to ask a specific question. The figure of £166 million was announced in the autumn statement. What is the net contribution of the Welsh Office to the £166 million for next year?
Sir Wyn Roberts: It is about £76 million. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
One of the first things that we did when we took office was to introduce the Industry act 1980, in which we gave the WDA the more catalytic role of stimulating private sector investment by encouraging private sector ownership of factories. That was important, because it was the only real way to achieve sustained high growth and prosperity. The attraction is that it gives the companies a real stake in Wales. The agency has succeeded in bringing more private money into Wales. For example, last year, for every pound that it spent on joint property ventures, it was successful in attracting more than £4 of private investment.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) rightly referred to our Command Paper 1516 on Government expenditure in Wales. I draw his attention to paragraph 5.21:
"Net grant in aid will decline significantly over the 3 years (from £87 million to £62 million), with the balance being made up from increased receipts."
I give him an assurance that, in setting sales targets, we take into account economic factors and the state of the property market in the year in question.
Mr. Rowlands: Is that all?
Sir Wyn Roberts: There is more that I could say, but I can certainly go no further in substance.
Mr. Rowlands: I am only teasing the right hon. Gentleman. We are trying to check the plausibility of that investment. That Command Paper assumed that the 1991 forecast of the factory sales would be 74,000 sq ft. Originally it was intended to be 209,000. We should have an idea what that figure is now likely to be. The figure for next year is 260,000. In terms of factory sales, how feasible are those figures?
Sir Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made an announcement. I have told the hon. Gentleman the proportion by way of net Government contribution. We anticipate that we can achieve the rest of the difference between net grant in aid and the gross. We shall make up the balance with increased receipts.
Mr. Rowlands: What will happen if that does not happen?
Sir Wyn Roberts: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I can only refer to our record, which, in terms of expenditure by the WDA, has been very good indeed.
In 1983, we set up WINvest, now Welsh Development International, to provide a sharper focus for the drive to get more overseas companies to choose Wales as a base. To date, we have had remarkable results. Last year, 147 projects were won, which will generate about £585 million of capital investment and are projected to create or safeguard about 15,000 jobs. We have also provided for the increased presence of the WDA abroad. Offices have now been opened in Canada, Taiwan and Korea, and an office in Germany is planned for next year. Offices were already placed in the United States and Japan before 1979.
Until the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) spoke, it seemed that Opposition Members wanted to extend the range of the WDA's responsibilities still further, especially in training. Hon. Members will know that a transfer of the responsibility for training in Wales has been approved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. From 1 April 1992, it will rest with the Welsh Office and not the Department of Employment.
The assumption of responsibility for training gives us a great opportunity to capitalise on what we have achieved to date with the establishment of TECs, in economic development and in our education reforms. Training will sit alongside enterprise and education in the Welsh Office. My right hon. Friend has set up a special unit at senior level to co-ordinate policies and activities across Wales. As a first step, he has issued strategic guidance to the TECs, setting an agenda for Wales within the national priority areas. Naturally, inward investment features prominently in that strategy.
In addition, if the Further and Higher Education Bill becomes law, we shall have further and higher education funding councils for Wales. Again, that will be the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office. Therefore, the whole of education and training at almost all levels will be beneath the umbrella of the Secretary of State at the Welsh Office.
Much earlier, the National Audit Office report was referred to. I wish to clarify a point about grants. The main form of grant, regional selective assistance, is indeed paid in relation to the number of jobs created, but it is important to realise that these grants are normally paid in stages over a period of time as projects develop. Naturally, a company's plans sometimes change, and the number of jobs originally foreseen at the time of the company's announcement changes. Sometimes job numbers increase but, it is true, sometimes they fall. If they fall, the amount of grant payable can also be reduced. There is also provision for grant to be recovered in certain circumstances if the project does not proceed as anticipated.
The WDA is active in urban development. It is vital to reinforce and strengthen local economies, particularly in the urban areas of Wales, which may have suffered as a
1154
result of the rundown of traditional industry. The WDA recognises that, and has set itself the job of bringing about urban regeneration and development to create an attractive environment for working and living. The involvement of the private sector is desirable in all that. The agency's role is essentially to act as a catalyst and co-ordinator.
My right hon. Friend referred to the general policy and the priority now attached to this work. Resources are being focused and targeted on specific towns or areas where there is both need and the potential for improvement. Under that programme in 1991–92, the agency plans to spend a record £12 million in some 28 towns or areas throughout Wales.
The agency cannot act alone, and partnerships or joint ventures with both the private and public sectors are often formed to take projects forward. I should like to mention some specific examples. The problems of Holyhead are well known, particularly to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) and me. The solution requires a combined, co-ordinated and targeted effort. The WDA has been joined by Ynys Mon borough council, Gwynedd county council, Sealink Stena, Holyhead opportunities trust and Holyhead town council to form the Holyhead urban joint venture. Some £5·6 million has been announced to regenerate the town. That involves the relocation of the port operations, the redevelopment of the west dock to provide major tourist attractions; developing land and the provision of premises for industrial investment. It also involves a marina, general environmental improvements and pedestrianisation works. There will also be a housing renewal area.
I should also like to mention the Cynon valley, where the borough council—again, a local authority—and the WDA have joined in a major plan to revive the valley's environment, prosperity and prospects. The plan, which will involve substantial private sector resources, will involve expenditure totalling some £18 million over the next few years. There will be substantial development of land for industrial purposes and major infrastructure work, including highway improvements. The town centres of Aberdare and Mountain Ash will also be the subject of a programme of commercial improvements. Major environmental and land reclamation works are also scheduled, which is particularly important for sites such as that occupied by the former phurnacite plant.
However, the plan cannot be achieved by physical works alone, and the improvement of training facilities is also included, along with substantial marketing campaigns, to attract new investment. I look forward to seeing the plan developing on the ground.
Further west, in Llanelli, the WDA is also involved in major proposals to regenerate the south Llanelli coastal area. The agency plans to invest over £1·6 million on residential and business park sites, a new coastal link road, coastal protection works and improved landscaping. Towns such as Merthyr Tydfil, Milford Haven and Rhyl are also to receive substantial investment through joint ventures, and 18 other towns are earmarked for urban investment.
Reference to Merthyr prompts me to inform the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, in connection with local sourcing, that the WDA is well aware of the potential for local Welsh firms to supply large inward investors. The WDA and the Welsh Office have programmes to ensure that investors are aware of

1155
opportunities for local supply. An example of that is our "Source Wales" campaign, which is operated by the Welsh Office.
In its rural development activities, the agency has been responsible for creating a wide range of job opportunities in rural Wales and has played a key role in strengthening local communities. At the beginning of last year, the WDA launched its rural prosperity programme. As a result, 15 rural communities will benefit from a co-ordinated programme of action totalling over £5 million. Throughout the Principality, rural towns and communities will benefit.
For example, in Gwynedd, action plans have been prepared for five communities, including Llanrwst, Porthmadog, and Bethesda in my constituency. In Clwyd, places such as Corwen and Denbigh have been targeted. In Dyfed, a programme of improvement works will be implemented in five areas, including Llandovery, Fishguard, and Narberth. The programme will implement a range of new opportunities in the communities concerned to enhance job prospects and local facilities.
I am a great believer in this initiative. The process involves collaboration between the local community, the voluntary sector, the private sector and the public sector, the objective being to harness the skills and enthusiasm of the community with the resources of the public and private sector to bring a new vitality and viability to the communities concerned.
That method is proving effective, due to the willingness of everyone to work together. I am impressed by it. I saw the partnership efforts at first hand when I visited Narberth not long ago. That is the way forward in the rural areas, and I am delighted to say that the agency will be considering other areas for action under the programme.
The Government are fully committed to the work of the agency in rural areas. That is one reason why we have given it record resources this year, which has in turn enabled the agency to increase by £5 million its expenditure in rural areas this year. In total, it is investing £25 million in this financial year, in support of development in rural areas, representing a substantial and growing commitment by the agency.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: On rural areas, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and I referred to the problem of abattoirs. Why is it that the Development Board for Rural Wales can help the project in Llanidloes, but the Welsh Office cannot become involved in the widespread problem in the rest of Wales?
Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentlemen are right to say that the Development Board for Rural Wales can make grants for abattoirs. Grants are also available outside the board's area. The real problem is that the establishment of a new slaughterhouse cannot be assisted if it adds to the slaughtering capacity in an area. The building of a new slaughterhouse must not create over-capacity—in other words, it must be a replacement of an old slaughterhouse. I have cut my answer rather short, but I am willing to write to the hon. Gentleman giving further details.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for paying a personal tribute to me on my involvement with Europe. There are great opportunities for Wales, Welsh business and the WDA in Europe. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that we
1156
have been working actively in recent years to develop closer links between Wales and other regions in Europe. We have enjoyed a great deal of success, which the WDA has followed up effectively. We have signed formal partnership agreements with Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany and Catalonia in Spain. We are also working actively with the Lombardy region in Italy and I have signed a letter of intent with a view to an agreement with the president of Lombardy, Dr. Giovenzana. We also have a relationship with the Rhone-Alpes region of France.
Those four motor regions of Europe have among the most powerful economies in the Community. They have considerable populations of some 5 million to 10 million people—6 million in Catalonia—so they have considerably larger populations than Wales. Nevertheless, although our relationships are good and primarily business-based, they extend more widely, particularly in the academic sphere. We lay great emphasis on technology transfer, and I believe that, by putting ourselves alongside those advanced regions of Europe, Wales can only benefit. We also have cultural contacts with those regions.
I am convinced that we must avoid the trap of regarding Europe simply as an abstract concept. It is a real place and a real market, full of opportunity for Welsh business. Europe must be approached in a positive and practical way, not simply with rhetoric.
The purpose of our regional relationships is to form the framework at political and administrative level that will help and encourage our companies and institutions to make practical, collaborative projects and explore business opportunities in each other's territory. It makes sense for Wales to approach this question region to region. We have been very encouraged by the results so far. I have visited Stuttgart, Milan and, most recently, Barcelona to pursue those opportunities. I am in no doubt that such opportunities exist and that there is a good welcome for an energetic approach by Wales within Europe.
I also believe that the partnerships that we are now establishing will be of lasting benefit to Wales within the Community.
It is also becoming increasingly clear that others, outside Wales, are of the same opinion. Wales is admired for the way in which it has pursued industrial recovery and environmental improvement, while at the same time attracting international investment and fostering the growth of indigenous small companies. We are also admired for the way that we are now looking outward, on a regional basis, to opportunities throughout Europe and the world. In many ways, it seems to me that ours is a model for regional development. President Pujol of Catalunña is of the same opinion. Others, in both western and eastern parts of Europe, are now interested in learning from our experiences. The WDA, as my right hon. Friend has said, has a most important role to play in all these sectors.
The House has heard today, from my right hon. Friend, myself and others, a story of growing success, and true co-operation in Wales. I know that some may seek for their own reasons to paint a picture of gloom and doom, and to undermine those who are working for Wales with energy and optimism, but they are the minority, and they have not been sounding off too much today. Clearly, we in Wales are moving forward; business confidence is reviving.
Unemployment in Wales fell last month. Since 1986, long-term unemployment has fallen from 78,000 to 31,200—a reduction of 60 per cent. That is 8 per cent. more

1157
than the fall for the United Kingdom as a whole during the same period. There are now nearly 100,000 more people in employment in Wales than there were before the 1983 general election. We want quality jobs, and we want to raise the level of remuneration.
Our success in attracting inward investment is well known, but I make no apologies for returning to the theme: Wales does extraordinarily well for its size in the battle—and battle it is—for foreign investment. I must tell the House that these projects do not arrive of their own accord, on a plate, gift-wrapped. Wales has no God-given right to them.
Competition is increasingly fierce. I agree with those who say that it might become fiercer, especially among the EC's 80 or so development regions, yet in 1990, with 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, Wales generated 20 per cent. of all incoming foreign investment projects. With 0·8 per cent. of the EC population, Wales achieved 5 per cent. of the investment. Wales chalks up another overseas investment project roughly every three working days—and that does not include business from the country's biggest source of investment, the rest of the United Kingdom.
All this means more jobs for Wales. We are all agreed that we want skilled and good quality jobs. Welsh Development International is charged with the task of continuing to generate such jobs. It has already sown the seeds, for example, with the joint venture between Imperial college, the agency and Newport borough council. Imperial park is set to become one of the leading science parks in the United Kingdom, combining the advantages of a superb site in Wales with the strength of one of the world's leading research institutions.
In addition to the creation of quality jobs, we are creating a better environment for living and working—Wales a "land of quality" as our own logo has it. The success of the WDA's land reclamation scheme is also the
1158
envy of many. Today, derelict land is being reclaimed in Wales at the rate of a football pitch a day and at the lowest cost among comparable programmes in the United Kingdom. Last year alone, projects worth £175 million were located on reclaimed land.
This year's budget, at £27 million—10 per cent. more than last year and more than double that of five years ago—will allow more than 1,800 acres of derelict land to be reclaimed. Reclaimed land has provided sites for enterprise zones, the Swansea and Penarth marinas, and for housing, factories and amenity or leisure sites such as the national garden festival site at Ebbw Vale. Nearly £20 million has already been spent on the reclamation of the old colliery and steel works site at Ebbw Vale. More than 1,000 jobs will be created when the festival is in progress.
There is much to be proud of, and the WDA has played a key part in the success so far. Looking forward, the new financial unit will provide the WDA with the headroom that it needs to pursue its tasks in the years ahead. I urge the House to support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Boswell.]
Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to Order [22 November].

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BILL [Money]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welsh Development Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) any increase in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament or out of the National Loans Fund or charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund; and

(b) any increase in the sums payable into either of those Funds,

which is attributable to increasing the limit in section 18(3) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 from £700 million to £950 million. —[Mr. Boswell.]

Welsh Development Agency Bill
Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [22 November].
Welsh Development Agency Bill
  Clause 1

    INCREASE OF FINANCIAL LIMIT
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to mention some reasons why we should carefully consider clause 1, which increases the borrowing limit for public finance for the WDA from £700 million to £950 million. I approve of that increase. The WDA has earned it, but it should not have a carte blanche. I have been concerned by one or two aspects of the way in which the WDA has been spending money recently.
    The WDA should receive this extra money, but that does not mean that it should be immune from criticism or parliamentary scrutiny of how it is spending this money. That is why I reject the criticism of me by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) for certain things that I have said recently. He said that my criticisms of the agency were damaging to Wales. That would be true only if one believed that any criticism of the WDA was damaging to Wales and that we as Members of Parliament did not have the right to scrutinise the way in which the WDA is spending its money.
    If we come across examples of the WDA misspending public money, it is the oldest public duty of all to draw attention to it, particularly when we are being asked to approve a massive increase of £250 million in the public funding available to the WDA. We should specify the acceptable and unacceptable ways of spending that public money.
    I want to give two examples of what I consider to be unacceptable methods of spending public money. I am talking of only a small aspect of the agency's operation, which I believe is open to perfectly fair criticism. That is not a criticism of the agency's being at all. If it were, it would be like saying that Beethoven's Emperor concerto is a rotten piece of music because he was drunk when he wrote it. That makes a difference to what we think of his music, and the same applies to my criticism of the agency.
    In 1990–91, the agency pointlessly lost around £1 million on its north American operations as a result of naivety and bad management. I am informed that it lost $250,000 on just one weekend—the same weekend, I believe, that the Secretary of State was there—in June this year.
    In July 1989, the agency entered into a bizarre three-way arrangement to set up Welsh Development International Inc. as a profit-making company incorporated in the state of Maryland. It was wholly owned not by the WDA itself, or WDI, but by Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Carignan of Baltimore, Maryland. Mr. Carignan was the chief operating officer of the agency's north American operations. He owned 99 shares of the company and his wife owned one share, in the usual way. That is a bizarre way for the agency to do business. The dangers to which it exposed the agency became evident at the end of June and the beginning of July this year.
    1160
    I wrote to the Secretary of State about that matter on 13 September, and on 30 September I received a reply that was nothing more than a cover-up. I think that the right hon. Gentleman had been flannelled by the agency.
    The $250,000 was lost when Mr. Carignan stripped the office bare of all its expensive equipment—an entire desktop publishing system, audio visual equipment, the database, desks, telephones, security system, and so on. Everything was stripped from the office after it had been in operation for 23 months. I am told that that equipment was valued at $250,000, but the WDA's contract with Mr. and Mrs. Carignan's private company had been so badly and naively drawn up that the agency had no claim to the items that the British taxpayer had paid for to equip the WDA's North American operation. Under the contract between the WDA at Pearl house in Cardiff, WDI and Mr. and Mrs. Carignan, they had the rights to all that equipment.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The agency's accounts are subject to audit by the National Audit Office, for which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has great respect. If he is alleging impropriety of any kind within the WDA, would it not be better if he reported any such facts or allegations that he has to the proper authorities?
    Mr. Morgan: There is no need for the Minister to come the old soldier with me. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 13 September, within a couple of weeks of being supplied with documents covering the contract. The right hon. Gentleman is, after all, the person who appoints the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency—who is responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales. To pretend that the right hon. Gentleman has no responsibility for ensuring that the WDA's money is spent properly is an extraordinary alleged abdication of the Welsh Office's financial responsibilities.
    The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State's primary responsibility is to the House, which is why we are debating the clause. The second responsibility is that of the permanent secretary—as the chief civil servant of the Welsh Office—to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, or to the Public Accounts Committee. The third responsibility is obviously that of the National Audit Office, which serves as a safety net in case the Secretary of State has, for one reason or another, not found out.
    On 13 September, I wrote to the Secretary of State telling him that something very peculiar had gone on in relation to the three-way contract. The WDA's right to retrieve the equipment was so weak that it even told an employee of Welsh Development International whose personal belongings had been taken by Mr. Carignan— presumably by mistake, when he swept the office bare—that it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie, and not to ask for them back. The attitude seemed to be, "We don't want to get involved. We have lost all that money. We had better just sweep it under the carpet and forget about it." I do not regard that as acceptable. The same applies to the flannel that I received from the Secretary of State for Wales on 30 September.
    I have received a parliamentary reply that casts a little light on a round-the-world trip, lasting nearly three weeks, that finished a fortnight ago, on 16 November. Those on the trip went from Wales to Japan, from Japan to Australia, from Australia to the United States and thence

    1161
    back to Wales. The reply to my written question, which I received a few hours ago, suggests that the concern that I expressed was entirely proper, despite what the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West said.
    The round-the-world trip was taken by three people, two of them employees of the agency, and one, Mr. Shimon Cohen, the personal public relations executive of the agency's chairman, an employee of Lowe Bell. The trip cost £28,000. This was no economy class venture to seek out inward investment; it was a de luxe trip, costing £9,500 a head.
    I question the wisdom of such a venture. The leg between Wales and Japan could be seen as a mission to secure inward investment: it was during that leg that the new investment referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was announced, although it had probably been fixed up earlier. After that, however, the three proceeded to the Great Barrier reef, stayed for a couple of nights in the Holiday inn in Cairns, Queensland, the local holiday resort, and went on to Melbourne and Sydney.
    I do not think that Australia is a great place to go for the purpose of seeking out foreign investment for Wales. Perhaps it will be in 10 years' time, when the economy has matured, but it is too early to expect Australia to be able to provide Wales with many factories and jobs this side of the year 2000.
    The rest of the trip strikes me as entirely unjustifiable. The three had intended to stay for two nights in Tahiti —from 15 to 17 November—at the Beachcomber hotel, where they were booked in; the plan was then to go on to Los Angeles. That leg of the trip was, however, cancelled. They had planned to visit only one company, and a management change caused the visit to be crossed off the list.
    The £28,000 really covered only a serious investment mission to Japan. The three could have returned direct from Japan, but instead they went to the Great Barrier reef, Melbourne, Sydney, Tahiti and then back home. That comes close to spending public money as though it were private money, and as though there were a lot of it to spend—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said.
    I have referred in early-day motions to the recycling of WDA grant money to consultancy companies that have been closely linked with, or owned by, senior officials of the agency. I disapprove strongly of that. However, I approve of the £250 million increase, although I think that it is time that the Secretary of State called in the WDA's chairman for a chat to put him back on the right road.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment; not amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Health Service (Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
10 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the health service in Wales. I recently tabled a question on the health service to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in which I asked what assessment he has made of the impact of new hospital technology on surgical procedures and treatments in Welsh hospitals. I received a fascinating reply. He told me of the opportunities for deinstitutionalising health care and said that before too long up to 60 per cent. of surgery will be performed on a day basis, with more than 80 per cent. being bloodless. Many lay people hearing that would be amazed to think that any operation, let alone 80 per cent. of day operations, would be bloodless.
My hon. Friend explained further developments, such as the use of endoscopy in gynaecology, orthopaedic and general surgery, whereby a flexible tube photographs body cavities and organs without the trauma of surgery. Lasers have superseded more traditional surgical approaches to treating skin, eye and gynaecological disorders.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to keyhole surgery and laparoscopic cholecystectomies—no wonder the health service abbreviates that to lap-cholies—which are replacing open abdomen gallstone operations. Damaged knee cartilage can be removed without opening the knee. Balloon angiography passes a balloon into an artery in a catheter. Those, and similar developments, are having a profound effect on the size and nature of our hospitals.
My hon. Friend concludes:
"What counts is not hospital bed numbers but providing people with the right services in the right settings."—[Official Report, 26 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 457.]
That made me want to look much deeper and I have tabled a series of questions to my hon. Friend on the health service in Wales. I regard this as an opportunity to put some facts on the record and further discuss the various arguments.
It is fairly well known that we are living longer. Since 1979, the number of over-60s has increased by 10 per cent. Similarly, the number of over-75s has increased by 62 per cent. I sought to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about centenarians. It is not possible to be precise, but Department of Social Security records show that there were approximately 100 people over the age of 100 in 1979; that has increased to 210 according to latest figures.
It could be said that the national health service is a victim of its own success; it is getting better and better all the time. It is treating us so well that we are living longer and it must now look after other problems and burdens, whereas mother nature would have terminated our existence previously. NHS figures show that the number of patients over 60 has increased by more than 83 per cent. in the past decade, compared with a numerical increase in the age group of only 10 per cent. The number of NHS patients over 75 has increased by 119 per cent., compared with a numerical increase of 32·6 per cent. The small sample of treatment of centenarians shows that their requirement of the national health service in Wales increased by more than the numerical increase.

1163
Having considered the performance of the national health service in Wales, I believe that far too much time is usually spent examining incidental statistics which do not give the true picture—for example, the numbers of hospitals and hospital beds and waiting lists. There is an almost inevitable tendency for waiting lists to lengthen. As for hospital beds, there have been significant closures and new hospitals have been built to replace the old ones. That has often meant that more efficient new hospitals do not need the same number of beds as before.
If one were to dwell on, for example, the statistics for the number of hospital beds, the figures could be manipulated. The building of a brand new hospital in which the beds were kept empty would add to the total number of beds but would not add one jot to the number of patients being treated in Wales.
Similarly, waiting lists are the victims of the health service's success. I remember a while ago that one of my hon. Friends visited a hospital in Wales and was told that the waiting time for hip replacements was more than a year. He dared to ask what the position had been 12 months before and he was told that the hospital had not performed hip replacements 12 months earlier.
There are opportunities for people to queue for treatment that was not previously available. Hip replacements provide a perfect example. During the past decade there has been a 60 per cent. increase in the number of hip replacements. Similarly, there has been a 29 per cent. increase in hernia operations during that period. The increase in the number of varicose vein operations is even more marked at 184 per cent.
In considering bed use in national health service hospitals in Wales, it might be pertinent to take the example of maternity confinements. During the past decade, the length of obstetric stays for maternity purposes has decreased by 33 per cent. GP maternity has not decreased to the same extent—the decrease was about 21 per cent.—but both now represent a stay in hospital of usually 3·7 days. That is an example of a lesser demand for the health service and of a lesser need for hospital beds. Let us bear those figures in mind but think back a little further. In 1961—30 years ago—stays for obstetrics lasted 10·3 days and 9·2 days for the maternity category.
We have more sophisticated health care now, so there are many reasons why it is much more difficult to utilize hospital beds to the greatest advantage. One would imagine that the prevalence of highly technological treatments mean that they cannot easily be picked up and put down. They make planning far more difficult. One also imagines that if there is an interruption to the planning process an alternative cannot easily be substituted to make up for any gap. It must now be much more onerous to plan the use of resources in the health service.
There is a clear tendency with high-tech operations or maternity cases for stays in hospital to be shorter. There is also a marked swing in the amount of national health service work done as day treatment. I am very sympathetic to hospital managers in Wales because they face a much more complex task in trying to plan resources—the most obvious resource being hospital beds. However, I am glad that the Government have adopted a target of increasing the present bed use rate from 73·6 per cent. to 78 per cent. in three years. That is an effective and efficient use of health service resources.
In dealing with total spending on the health service in Wales, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
1164
Wales this afternoon announced a magnificent increase —the figure for 1992–93 will be £1,877 million. What a sum that is when one reflects that in the last year of the previous Labour Government the figure was a mere £481 million. That should really be explained. These days we always have to ask for a definition not only in cash terms but in real terms. I am glad that this afternoon my right hon. Friend was able to translate the figures into terms that most of us could understand. My family of four—myself, my wife and two children—know, as every similar family in Wales does, that the health service will spend £2,600 on every family of four in 1992–93. That is quite a big deal and that is how it should be regarded. It is a better explanation than trotting out the response that there has been a 60 per cent. increase in real terms. The translation is that we are spending more than £50 a week for every family of four.
The obvious next question should be: where does the money go? Possibly the most important task that the Government had to take on was repairing the cuts that they inherited when they came into office in 1979. It must not be forgotten that the only Government in the history of the national health service ever to make cuts was the previous Labour Government. Repairing those cuts was the priority of our Government in 1979.
That was especially evident in capital spending on the health service. Over the five years of the Labour Government capital spending declined by 21 per cent., so it was important that in the following years the Government reversed that trend. The 21 per cent. cut was in real terms and in real terms spending has gone up by 62 per cent. since 1979.
The Labour Government's cuts were not all deliberate. One of the causes of the cut in capital expenditure was the burden of hyper-inflation. We shall never forget that nurses and doctors working for the health service in Wales were among those who suffered badly from hyper-inflation under the Labour Government. Their take-home pay was cut in real terms. Doctors lost 9·9 per cent.; nurses did far worse, suffering a cut of 21·1 per cent. Happily, the Government have now made up for that, too. Since 1979 doctors' and dentists' pay has increased by 28·7 per cent. in real terms and that of nurses, midwives and health visitors—they have had a better deal, but their increase was even more necessary because they suffered more under the Labour Government—has increased by 48·7 per cent. in real terms.
When considering the health service, the most important statistic is not how much has been spent—in real terms or otherwise—but how many more patients are being treated. That is the real proof of the pudding. I am pleased to see that creditable improvements have taken place under the Government. A total of 132,000 more in-patients are being treated—an increase of 38 per cent. since 1979. There are 122,000 more out-patients—a 28·6 per cent. increase. There has been a staggering increase —72,000—in the number of day patients, which represents a 232·9 per cent. increase.
The number of in-patients and day patients increased under the Labour Government, too, but another example of the cuts that they inflicted on the health service is the fact that the number of out-patients fell—not by much, only 3·4 per cent. That illustrates the way in which the health service suffered under Labour.
The improvements that have been made are an excellent tribute to the staff who work so hard in the national health service. However, we should not forget that the increase in

1165
the number of patients treated is not as large as the amount of extra funding. That is inevitable. The Government had to restore the cuts made by the Labour Government, including those suffered by doctors and nurses. They had to pay more for the more expensive, high-tech care and to meet the needs of the older patients that the health service now has to treat. But it entitles us to ask: can we do better with the health service? The overwhelming answer was that we had to reform it. It had gone on for such a long time in basically the same way that it had to be brought up to date to respond more realistically to the demands of the 1990s.
It was necessary to move forward and to consider whether we may have shed some important elements from the health service that should not have been taken away. If so, we could bring them back. The example that springs most readily to mind is the grade of matron. Matrons always seemed to run their hospitals in the best interests both of the hospitals and of the patients whom they served, so I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is to be a Pembrokeshire NHS trust.
So many wild claims have been made for electoral purposes—perhaps "deceptions" would be the right word to describe them—that hospitals would close and basic health facilities would be denied.
I notice that in the debate in Pembrokeshire those who seem to have really studied the matter—the community health council, the staff and the doctors—have come out in favour of the Pembrokeshire national health service trust. It means that a trust in Pembrokeshire will lead to local decisions being taken for the benefit of local people. We cannot turn the clock back, but it is the nearest that we can achieve to the desirable objective of putting matrons back into hospitals. They symbolise to me exactly what the national health service trust is all about.
In the campaign that has been waged against the NHS trust, it is a matter of great regret to me that politicians have also waged a campaign of denigration against the health service in Wales. One target has been the specialist treatment centres. I remember one allegation that was trumpeted loud—that the latest specialist treatment centre would employ only second-rate surgeons and that the presence of second-rate surgeons would lead to general practitioners not feeling that the centres were good enough for their patients. That was the most monstrous insult not only to the latest specialist treatment centre, but to the others which are already working hard and effectively on essentially the same basis to increase the number of operations. Do those who make those claims realise the damage that they are doing and the way in which they are denigrating a wonderful, fine and excellent health service? It may not be perfect, but at the very least we must defend it against political opportunists who make such claims.
We have a very good health service in Wales, although I cannot yet bring myself to describe it as an excellent one. There will probably always be, and there is now, room for improvement. I will give my hon. Friend examples. I have been in touch with him about hearing aids at the University hospital of Wales. There are other problems about ambulances and admissions to the University hospital of Wales. We shall always have such problems and I hope they will be as minor as possible.
1166
We shall have to continue to increase the funding of the national health service. I know that the Government are fully committed to that objective continuing. We must firmly reject those who denigrate the health service and those who make outrageous claims for electoral purposes. People who make outrageous claims will come to realise that they cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): I welcome this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) on achieving this debate at short notice tonight. As a user of the national health service, I share the determination that we should continue to improve our national health service in Wales.
As my hon. Friend said, in the past 12 years we have transformed the NHS. When we hear Opposition criticisms about the national health service under this Government's control, it is interesting to look at the latest opinion poll, published just a few days ago. It shows that 93 per cent. of the people of Wales are happy with the national health service under this Government. Despite that, we are not complacent or smug. We want to ensure that the 7 per cent. who are not happy should in future have little or no cause for criticism. That is why we shall continue the reforming programme that we have introduced in the past year or so in the NHS in Wales. We shall not be deflected from it by the Opposition's ignorant criticism.
It is worth looking at the statement on spending made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales this afternoon. We often hear talk from the Labour party about cuts. As my hon. Friend said, the only cuts in the health service in Wales took place under the Labour Government between 1974 and 1979 after the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), was asked by the International Monetary Fund to return from his visit to New York and to cut public spending.
Since 1979, spending on the NHS has risen from £8 billion to £32 billion. After taking account of price increases, the increase in the Welsh NHS spending between 1979–80 and 1991–92 is no less than 58 per cent. in real terms. My right hon. Friend's announcement today brings the increase up to more than 60 per cent. in real terms by 1992–93.
That rate of increase is twice that which occurred under the Labour party between 1974 and 1979. It has meant that the proportion of our national wealth that we spend on health has risen from less than 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. The total figure which was announced in the statement today brings spending in the Welsh NHS this year to £1,877 million. Planned expenditure will go up by a staggering £186 million. That will mean that national health service expenditure will be boosted in Wales to £651 this year for every man, woman and child in the Principality. Those are truly staggering figures. When one looks at the resources that are being put into the NHS, one can see dramatically the difference over the past 12 years compared with the period of the previous Labour Government.
My hon. Friend referred to cuts in the hospital building programme under the previous Labour Government—down in real terms by £11 million, but up, under this

1167
Government, by £27·5 million. He then spoke of the expectations of and demands on the Welsh health service. My hon. Friend was quite right to look in some detail at the changes that have taken place in what people expect—for example, a larger number of elderly people living to a greater age in Wales as a result of improved health care, and the new operations which have become available. My hon. Friend referred to increases in the number of hernia operations, varicose vein operations and hip replacements. It is no longer acceptable for people who have hernias to be told that they must wear a surgical truss. We do not expect women with varicose veins to be given surgical stockings and told to go away. People quite rightly now expect to have that treatment in the NHS, and the new NHS is providing it.
In 1961, the average maternity confinement was 9·2 days. Today it is 3·7 days. One can see clearly the information and the factors that are leading to a reduction in the number of beds. Opposition Members talk about bed reductions—reductions took place under the Labour Government as well—in a vacuum, without explaining the dramatic changes in the way in which people are treated today compared with many years ago.
My hon. Friend mentioned, for instance, that before long 60 per cent. of surgery will be performed on a day basis, with more than 80 per cent. of it being bloodless. He went into some detail—I will not attempt to pronounce some of the words that he found difficult to pronounce—of the new techniques which are being brought in, for example, with endoscopes, lasers and techniques known as keyhole surgery, all of which have reformed the way in which medical technology treats patients in the NHS and has made the need for so many beds and for a large number of old-fashioned hospitals now out of date.
I therefore make no apology whatever for the fact that both under this Government and under the previous Government we have reduced the number of crumbling Victorian hospitals and replaced them with new, modern district hospitals. Since 1979, we have opened major district general hospitals—for example, the Morriston phase 1 in Swansea, the Princess of Wales hospital at Bridgend, Ysbyty Wrexham Maelor, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, Ysbyty Gwynedd, and the Prince Philip hospital in Llanelli—six brand new general hospitals. In the past year we have given approval for two more district hospitals to be prepared—at Neath and at Ynys-y-Plum in mid Glamorgan. We can see that progress is being made on all fronts under the Conservative party in control of the NHS in Wales.
In the 12 months I have been Minister, I have begun construction, attended or opened a new NHS facility in Wales every four weeks. More importantly, spending has led to dramatic improvements in the number of patients treated. As my hon. Friend mentioned, since 1979 the number of in-patients has risen by 38 per cent.—well over a third since we came to office—the number of out-patients has gone up by 29 per cent., and day case surgery has increased by almost 260 per cent. The results for the people of Wales have been dramatic. The number of men under 65 prematurely dying is down by 5 per cent. Premature deaths among women under 65 are down by 4 per cent. Perinatal mortality rates have been reduced by 40 per cent. The life expectancy at birth for someone living in Wales rose by two and a half years between 1979 and 1989. That is why we have been so determined to continue the reforms.
1168
We should pause for a minute to consider what is being done and why. We are carrying out our reforms not because we believe that we need to disrupt the NHS, not because we want to be unpopular, but because we believe strongly that our national health service can be reformed and needs to be improved still further and that is what we are determined to do. We cannot go on, as we have in the past, not knowing the cost of operations, not being able to compare different treatments, operations and techniques in different hospitals and not knowing whether one general practitioner is prescribing more drugs than he needs to compared with another GP. We had to get a grip on spending in the NHS—not because we wanted to save money for the sake of saving money because we were mean-minded and penny-pinching, but because we believe that a pound that is wasted in the NHS is a pound that is not available for direct patient health care. That is why we have introduced our reforms and why we have been prepared to take flak from the Opposition parties which are not interested in the NHS, but only in scoring party political points.
The reforms on which we have embarked are now being copied around the world with 18 out of the 24 countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development either planning or implementing similar reforms. The Dekker reforms in Holland oblige purchasers to choose between providers. Germany is asking its sickness funds to cancel contracts with inefficient hospitals and is obliging its hospitals to publish details of their costs. Even in socialist Sweden, the health authorities have started awarding contracts to health centres and hospitals which provide the right service at the right price.
We are determined to ensure that our reforms continue. Only today we announced that an additional 19 GP fundholders had been approved to take control of their own budgets from next April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales also announced today the establishment of the first NHS trust in Wales. As the constituency Member of Parliament for Pembroke, I am delighted that Pembrokeshire is once again leading the way in Wales by pioneering new forms of NHS management.
I believe that trusts are, increasingly, the natural form of organisation for NHS units in Wales. The more I talk to managers as I visit hospitals throughout Wales, the more it becomes clear that they are enthusiastic about the new reforms and want to be able to go down the road of becoming NHS trusts. I hope that we shall shortly be able to announce that a substantial number of NHS hospitals and units in Wales have applied for NHS trust status. That shows that the Opposition's talk about our policy being unpopular is totally bogus because, of their own volition and without any pressure being applied, the staff and management of the NHS in Wales are applying to the Welsh Office with expressions of interest in becoming trusts. That shows that our policy is well understood by the professionals, who very much want the additional management control that trust status brings.
I find it strange that the Labour party is opposing the idea of NHS trusts because we are simply seeking to return to the system of hospital management boards which existed before 1974. Indeed, at that time the Labour party opposed the establishment of district health authorities and wanted to keep that old system. We have all recognised that big is not necessarily beautiful, and that there is much to be said for devolving management down

1169
to smaller units, but the Labour party is now in favour of large centralised bureaucracies. It opposes giving local people the opportunity to manage their own health services. I am delighted that we in Pembrokeshire have been able to lead the way.
The Government have also introduced the patients charter. I do not want to go into detail about that now because time is running short, but every home in Wales has already been sent a copy of the charter—or will be in the next few weeks—giving patients details of their rights. I believe that every person in Wales should know how their money is being spent and what services they can expect.
I turn finally and briefly to the Opposition's policy. It is interesting that no Opposition Members have stayed in the Chamber for this debate. Labour politicians throw up their hands in horror and make snide remarks about accountants in the NHS reforms, but they do not say that the opposite of achieving value for money through the reforms is to waste money. That is the most repugnant feature of Labour's dishonesty on health matters.
1170
Opposition Members try to pretend that they would spend more, but the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) say that they cannot. When one looks at the Labour party's proposals, it becomes clear that the Opposition do not have any real policies for reforming the NHS. The only thing in which Opposition Members are interested is stopping reform or any change to the status quo. They would be the mouthpieces of the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees. They would not in any way provide the service that the patients want.
That is why we must continue with the overriding objective set out in our agenda for action, which is to take the people of Wales into the 21st century with a level of health care that is on course to compare with the best in Europe. Our aim is nothing less than the regeneration and improvement of one of our most important public services for the benefit of all our countrymen. It is a challenge that we relish and accept. We shall not fail.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Procedures Inspectorate
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the work of his Department's animal procedures inspectorate in 1990; and if he will break this total cost down into salaries for inspectors, salaries for support staff, administrative costs and other specified costs, respectively.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The total cost of the Home Office animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate for 1990–91 was over £1·5 million. Salary costs for inspector; and support staff were some £842,000 and £295,000 respectively. Travelling and subsistence costs for inspectors amounted to some £100,000 and accommodation and other costs including computing were some £309,000.

  European Community Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the EC Ministerial Council meetings at which his Department has or will be represented during November and December.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The Home Office was represented at the meeting of the Justice Council on 13 November in Brussels, and will be represented at the Trevi/immigration ministerial meeting at The Hague on 2 and 3 December.

  European Community (Visits)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list (i) the number of visits made by officials in his Department during the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (ii) the number of visits made by officials in his Department to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (iii) the number of nights spent by officials in his Department over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information for the month of October 1991 is as follows:

  (i) 51 visits were made by officials to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community;

  (ii) 29 visits were made by officials to Brussels;

  (iii) 76 nights were spent by officials away from the United Kingdom.

  Magistrates Courts (Grant)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the level of grant paid for magistrates courts in the London borough of Barnet in each of the last four years; and what level of grant he intends to pay in 1992–93.
  564
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Magistrates courts expenditure is supported by grant at the rate of 80 per cent. The grant paid in 1988–89 to 1990–91, and expected to be paid in 1991–92, in respect of expenditure by the Barnet magistrates courts committee is as follows:

  £

  11988–89

  892,200

  11989–90

  978,190

  21990–91

  2,057,506

  21991–92

  31,850,338

  1 Grant paid on revenue expenditure, revenue contributions to capital, and capital financing costs.

  2 Grant paid on revenue and approved capital expenditure, and on loan charges relating to pre-1990–91 capital expenditure.

  3 Estimated outturn.

  We will shortly be notifying magistrates courts committees of the cash limit on grant payable in respect of their 1992–93 revenue expenditure. I shall then write to the hon. Member. The allocation of approved capital expenditure which will attract 80 per cent. grant will be notified subsequently.

  Crossbows
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to provide for a licensing scheme to enable persons aged 17 years or more to purchase and use crossbows under safe conditions to prevent so far as reasonably practicable injury to persons and animals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have no plans to do so. There is no firm evidence to suggest that the level of crossbow misuse is widespread and increasing, or that existing legislation is not adequate to deal with the misuse which does take place. A system of licensing crossbows would be expensive to administer and would divert police resources away from other operational tasks. The Government are not persuaded, therefore, that licensing crossbows—which are used by many responsible people for legitimate sporting and recreational purposes—could be justified.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the suicide risk of young people held in young offenders institutions is reviewed; and whether it is reassessed after major events such as the death of a relative.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Every prisoner is assessed for suicide risk upon reception into a young offender institution. The doctor decides at that time the appropriate immediate action and whether the prisoner should be recalled for further assessment, or for regular review. If at any time during the period in custody, a prisoner shows signs of possible suicide risk, he or she will be referred by staff to a medical officer for reassessment.

  Where events likely to cause distress to a prisoner come to the attention of staff, the prisoner's behaviour and general demeanour will be monitored particularly carefully and, where necessary, additional care and support will be provided. If there is any concern about a possible suicide attempt, the prisoner will be referred to a doctor for further assessment.
  565
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any classification is made by staff at young offender institutions between suicide threats they consider genuine and those they consider have another motive.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There is no formal system of classifying threats of suicide by prisoners. It is difficult in practice to distinguish the level of intent in a prisoner's mind. All threats, therefore, must be and are taken seriously by prison staff. Not all prisoners who threaten suicide or who commit an act of self harm will necessarily be determined to kill themselves. But such behaviour, even where not suicidal, will normally be the expression of emotional problems which need to be addressed as soon as possible lest they develop into a more serious crisis.

  Staff are encouraged to assess where problems may exist and to provide help and support to enable the prisoner to resolve them if at all possible.

  Private Visits
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total estimated cost of private visits undertaken by him, other Ministers, and officials and specialist advisers, in an official capacity during the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I regret that information in the form requested is not held centrally.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to support the provisions of the data protection directive affecting political canvassers' powers to ask members of the public about their voting intentions.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are seeking to remove or mitigate the effects of the requirements in the draft directive which go beyond United Kingdom law and might hamper canvassing of voting intentions.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to support the provisions of the data protection directive which prevent direct mailing.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are aware of concerns among various organisations about the likely effects of the draft directive on direct mailing. In discussion with other member states, it is seeking to ensure that the notification and consent provisions are modified in such a way as to avoid unreasonable restrictions.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to support the provisions of the data protection directive which would prevent airline tickets being issued across the boundaries of member states of the European Community.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are seeking modification of provisions of the draft data protection directive which might inhibit the normal and legitimate ticketing of airline travel from a member state across the external frontier of the Community.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy in 566
  respect of negotiations on proposed EC directives with respect to (a) protection of the freedom of the individual and (b) protection of freedom of the press.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In negotiations on EC directives, the Government seek to ensure a proper balance between the interests of the individual and of society at large.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to support those elements of the data protection directive which involve controls over the use of personal data such as names and addresses.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are seeking to remove or mitigate the effects of provisions in the draft data protection directive which go beyond the controls which United Kingdom law already imposes on the use of computerised personal data, including names and addresses.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to support controls on the use of credit cards outside the European Community under the data protection directive.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are seeking modification of provisions in the draft data protection directive which might inhibit the normal and legitimate use of credit cards by European Community nationals in third countries.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make its policy not to support the provisions in the data protection directive involving preparation of opinion polls.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are seeking to remove or mitigate the effects of the requirements in the draft directive which go beyond United Kingdom law and might hamper the activities of public opinion pollsters.

  Police Establishment
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce his decision on increases in police establishments for 1992–93.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  On 9 October I announced that there would be up to 1,000 additional police posts for 1992–93. I have today approved allocations for 937 police posts. In addition, 63 police posts will be freed for operational duties as a result of the contracting out of prisoner escorts next year. I have allocated 807 additional posts to provincial forces; the allocation is shown in the following table. The increases are effective from 1 April 1992, subject to confirmation by police authorities that they are willing to fund their share of the cost of these posts, where this has not already been given.

  I have also set aside 30 posts for allocation to regional crime squads. Of these, 22 have been allocated to the No. 9 regional crime squad which covers the Metropolitan police district. I shall await the advice of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary before I decide on allocations to the provincial regional crime squads.

  I can also approve up to 100 posts where I am satisfied that the full cost would be reimbursed by a third party, as in the case of some airports.

  Applications from police authorities for increases in establishments have exceeded the number of posts

  567
  available for allocation and I have therefore had to set priorities taking into account advice from Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary. Because I have had to target the increases on the forces which I judge to be in the greatest need, some forces have not had their applications for increases in establishment approved.

  Over 80 per cent. of the posts will be deployed on operational duties identified by chief constables, mainly at constable level.

  I have also allocated 30 extra posts to provincial police forces for 1991–92. These posts have been reallocated from provisions originally made for regional crime squads. Details of these allocations are also given in the table. These increases will have immediate effect.

  In addition to police costs, provision has been made for more than 1,100 additional civilian staff posts to help forces release more police officers for operational duties through civilianisation. Provincial police authorities identified scope in their applications for 1992–93 for the release of some 400 additional police officers to operational duties through civilianisation. In addition the Metropolitan police plans to increase operational strength by 200 through civilianisation.

  The full effect of the additional posts together with civilianisation could therefore be to increase operational strength by over 1,500 in 1992–93.

  Force

  Increase approved

  1992–93 applications approved

  Avon and Somerset

  2

  Bedfordshire

  61

  Cambridgeshire

  10

  Cheshire

  20

  Cumbria

  4

  Derbyshire

  25

  Devon and Cornwall

  48

  Dorset

  15

  Dyfed-Powys

  25

  Essex

  58

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Greater Manchester

  20

  Gwent

  1

  Hampshire

  67

  Hertfordshire

  4

  Humberside

  9

  Kent

  42

  Lancashire

  4

  Leicestershire

  26

  Norfolk

  25

  North Wales

  17

  North Yorkshire

  4

  Northamptonshire

  23

  Northumbria

  27

  South Yorkshire

  15

  Staffordshire

  4

  Suffolk

  17

  Surrey

  3

  Sussex

  32

  Thames Valley

  87

  Warwickshire

  4

  West Mercia

  29

  West Midlands

  11

  Wiltshire

  67

  TOTAL

  807

  Additional allocations for 1991–92

  Cambridgeshire

  6

  Derbyshire

  5

  Greater Manchester

  7

  Kent

  6

  Northamptonshire

  6

  568

  Force

  Increase approved

  TOTAL

  30

  Applications not approved

  Durham

  Merseyside

  South Wales

  West Yorkshire

TRANSPORT

  Ministers (Travel)
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles he and his Ministers have travelled on British Rail during the course of their official duties during the last year.

  Mr. Freeman
  Over the last year, the Secretary of State for Transport and his ministerial colleagues have made about 150 journeys by British Rail while on official business.

  HGV Taxation
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the situation as regards the enforcement of heavy goods vehicle taxation under the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 concerning those operators involved in drain cleansing, the standards required for drivers and the recent court judgment in Swansea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The licensing and regulation of large goods vehicles (LGVs) is governed by the Vehicle (Excise) Act 1971. Classification depends upon the construction of the vehicle and its use on the public road. The taxation requirements for LGVs are vigorously enforced.

  The classification of vehicles in the drain/sewer cleansing industry is complex. The issue is complicated by the requirement for some vehicles to meet the Plating and Testing Regulations 1988.

  A recent court judgment has cast doubt on the Department's interpretation of the law in respect of the plating and testing regulations applicable to drain/sewer cleansing vehicles. The Department is considering whether to lodge an appeal.

  Community Transport
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what grants are available for the development of community transport projects.

  Mr. Freeman
  Local authorities have powers to assist with the development of community transport projects. In addition, the Department of Transport grant-aids such projects in rural areas through the rural transport development fund administered by the Rural Development Commission.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer of 18 November,Official Report, column 10, what is his definition of "temporarily imported" for vehicles registered in other EC states, in so

  569
  far as such vehicles qualify for exemption from United Kingdom vehicle excise duty; and what steps are being taken to check that avoidance of due taxation is not taking place by coaches registered in the Republic of Ireland but operating full time in Britain.

  Mr. Chope
  A coach is held to be temporarily imported for these purposes if it is exported from the United Kingdom on completion of its journey, or otherwise, normally within three months of its entering the United Kingdom. Vehicle excise duty on a typical 50-seater coach is £207 in Ireland and £300 in the United Kingdom. I shall be pleased to consider any evidence which my hon. Friend has that existing regulations are being abused.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the amount of funding available for(a) traffic calming and (b) entry treatments along the length of the red route.

  Mr. Chope
  Because the red route pilot scheme is being used as a demonstration project the Department has agreed to meet the full cost of associated measures on local roads. We expect to pay about £0·6 million for traffic calming and £1·2 million for entry treatment.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received regarding the red route through Islington; how many were in favour; and how many against.

  Mr. Chope
  I have received several representations about the red route pilot scheme. Some have been supportive, others less so. Many have concentrated on specific aspects of the scheme and have resulted in modifications being made.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives from the Chartered Institute of Transport to discuss the growth in air traffic.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. and learned Friend attended the Confederation of British Industry's transport council in July this year, though not specifically to discuss the growth in air traffic.

  Rolling Stock
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations he has received from the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority regarding the need to make a decision on the contract for rolling stock for the Leeds-Bradford electrification; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the financing of the rolling stock for use on the electrified railway between Bradford and Leeds and the Aire Valley railway.

  Mr. Freeman
  The West Yorkshire passenger transport authority and executive have pressed for an early decision on this project. I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to approve the investment bid for British Rail plans to improve Network 570
  SouthEast rolling stock, track availability and services on the London-Brighton, London-Lewes and London-Newhaven-Seaford lines.

  Mr. Freeman
  I will be happy to consider any proposal although I note that the majority of investment schemes do not require ministerial approval.

  Camera Surveillance
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake to examine the feasibility of installing camera surveillance equipment at accident-prone junctions.

  Mr. Chope
  A number of automatic cameras are already in use in various parts of the country to detect violations of red traffic lights at junctions. Section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 will allow information recorded by such devices, if type approved, to be used as evidence in court proceedings. It also makes similar provision for speed-detector cameras.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet representatives of local authorities to promote the use of surveillance cameras at traffic light-controlled junctions.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department has been consulting the local authority associations on the issue of guidance on the deployment of automatic cameras at traffic light-controlled junctions, and also for the detection of speeding offences.

  Passenger Statistics
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has undertaken of passenger numbers on bus services following deregulation in(a) Greater London and (b) Metropolitan districts outside London.

  Mr. Freeman
  Between 1985–86 and 1990–91 bus patronage in London increased by some 4 per cent. reflecting a general increase in demand for all forms of public transport in the conurbation.

  Outside London, over the five-year period bus patronage declined at an average rate of 4 per cent. per year (19 per cent. in total) broadly in line with long-term trends since the 1960s. In the Metropolitan areas the overall decline was some 26 per cent., the bulk of which occurred in 1986–87 reflecting the changes in the subsidy regime from the previous low fare/high subsidy policies and the substantial reorganisation of services which occurred around the time of deregulation.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of gross national product is accounted for by public investment in railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1990–91 capital investment by British Rail (£834 million) and by London Underground (£442 million) totalled £1,276 million. This represented some 0·23 per cent. of gross national product.

  Railway Noise
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the Government's conclusions on the report "Railway Noise and the Insulation of Dwellings" by the committee chaired by Dr. Mitchell.

  Mr. Freeman
  In my reply to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on 27 February 1991,Official Report, column 507, I said that before deciding on the committee's recommendations we would like to have the views of railway operators and other interested parties. We have now considered the views received and have come to the following decisions on the committee's main recommendations. Our aim has been as far as possible to achieve equity in the noise insulation standards applying to new roads and new railways. But as was evident from the committee's report, this is a field in which there is room for different opinions.

  We accept the committee's view (recommendation 1 in the report) that those responsible for new railway lines should take all reasonably practicable steps to reduce noise in the corridor along the line, provided that they are cost effective.

  We accept that there should be a night-time noise insulation standard for noise from new railways as well as a day-time standard (recommendations 2, 3 and 4). We have decided that, in line with the existing noise insultation standard for new roads, day time should be defined as 0600 to midnight, and that the levels should be 68 dBA LAeq 18 hr for day and 63 dBA LAeq 6 hrfor night. 68 dBA LAeq 18 hr is a straight conversion from the 24 -hour level recommended by the committee. In the case of the night-time standard, both British Rail and the transport and road research laboratory have carried out analyses of more sets of road noise data than were available to the committee. Our decision that the night-time standard noise for railways should be 63 dBA LAeq 6 hr reflects the outcome of those later analyses.

  We accept in principle that the detailed operation of the noise insulation standards for new railways should follow as closely as possible the system already provided in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973 (as amended) in the case of new roads (recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11).

  The committee identified a number of other items that would need to be specified in any regulations (recommendations 9, 10, 12 and 13). We shall consider these recommendations when drawing up regulations to give effect to the noise insulation standards. In drafting the regulations and an associated technical memorandum, the Department will seek the technical assistance of Dr. Mitchell and some of the members of his committee and of representatives of the railway operators. We shall also ask this group to consider further whether it would be appropriate and practicable to include a maximum pass-by noise standard in the regulations (recommendation 15), though it would go beyond strict equity with the current statutory position relating to noise from new roads.

  We accept recommendation 14 (that any future change in the noise level for the insulation of houses near new roads should be matched by a corresponding change for houses near new railways). We hope to commission next year a review of the data from road noise surveys to see whether there is any evidence of a shift in social attitudes towards road traffic noise. If such evidence emerges, we will consider the need for a large-scale study to determine
  572
  whether there is a case for revising the noise insulation standard for new roads. We also accept in principle that when a new railway line is opened the opportunity should be taken to obtain evidence of the response to noise from new railway lines (recommendation 17). In the light of the evidence from the various studies, it may be appropriate in due course to review the relationship between the standard for new roads and those for new railways.

  We are considering the implications of bringing some non-domestic buildings within the scope of the road noise insulation regulations; any change will be reflected in the regulations for railways (recommendation 16).

  We shall consult on a draft of the regulations before they are made.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will(a) give his Department's actual spend in 1990–91 and planned spend in 1991–92 and 1992–93 on science and technology, (b) break down this total spend by programme and (c) distinguish between capital and revenue expenditures.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Science and Technology

  £m

  1990–91 actual

  1991–92 provision

  1992–93 provisional plans

  Innovation (Industrial R&D)

  82·2

  103·2

  100·0

  Innovation (Other)

  2·9

  1·4

  3·7

  Aeronautics

  26·1

  25·5

  26·1

  Launch Aid

  89·9

  -7·7

  -26·1

  Space

  88·9

  96·1

  95·2

  Statutory Regulatory and Policy Support

  48·1

  51·1

  55·9

  Other (including Business Development, Design and Education and Training

  63·3

  52·2

  47·2

  Total

  401·5

  322·0

  302·0

  Total (excluding Launch Aid)

  311·6

  329·7

  328·1

  It is not possible to distinguish between capital and other expenditure within the totals.

  Footwear Imports
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 126, if he will state in full the reasons he decided not to ask the European Commission for the suspension of free circulation of imported footwear from China.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I am writing to the hon. Member and shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

THE ARTS

  Items in Lieu of Tax
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if there have been any items accepted in lieu of tax or allocated since his last announcement on 19 November.

  Mr. Renton
  Since my announcement on 19 November at column 123, I am pleased to inform the House of the acceptance of a Bugatti motor car and two vintage motor cycles in lieu of £153,000 tax. No decision has been taken on the allocation of these vehicles but the allocation of three offers previously accepted in lieu of tax has been decided. A watercolour by Rex Whistler entitled "Britannia visits the London Museum" will be allocated to the Museum of London, a portrait of Lady Ottoline Morrell by Augustus John will go to the National Portrait gallery and a collection of papers by George Bellas Greenough will go to University college London.

  London Boroughs Grants Scheme
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to ensure that there is no repetition of the problems for arts organisations caused by the London boroughs grants scheme this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  The inability of the London boroughs grants scheme to set a budget until well after the start of the current financial year caused havoc for its arts clients. I have listened to the many representations made to me and I am determined that there should be no repetition in future years. I understand that the process of setting a budget for 1992–93 is well in hand. I shall watch developments carefully and I shall remain ready to reconsider if necessary whether the funding arrangements in London are appropriate.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases were in court or under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office at(a) 1 April 1990, (b) 1 October 1990, (c) 1 April 1991 and (d) 1 October 1991 respectively; and how many lawyers and investigative staff were employed by the office at each date, distinguishing between those employed permanently and those employed temporarily.

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of cases under investigation and in court at the dates stipulated were as follows:

  Under investigation

  At court

  1 April 1990

  32

  29

  1 October 1990

  27

  40

  1 April 1991

  19

  37

  1 October 1991

  15

  42

  574
  Cases under investigation are those where a decision whether or not to institute criminal proceedings has not yet been taken. Cases in court are those in which proceedings have commenced whether or not the proceedings were at the final court of trial. The figure of 50 cases given on Monday, 14 October 1991, in answer to a question from the hon. Member at column 36 is consistent with, but calculated on a different basis from, the figures here reported. The figure of 57 cases for October 1991 counts separate transfers or committals resulting from a common investigation as separate cases, whereas the figure of 50 does not.

  The number of permanent staff employed as lawyers and investigative accountants at these dates were as follows:

  Lawyers

  Investigative accountants

  1 April 1990

  18

  14

  1 October 1990

  19

  16

  1 April 1991

  19

  16

  1 October 1991

  19

  19

  The number of temporary staff in these categories was three lawyers and nine investigative accountants at 1 October 1991 and two lawyers and 10 accountants at 1 April 1991. The figures for 1990 are not available. These figures exclude the use of counsel and staff from private sector accountancy firms engaged to work on individual cases.

  Judges and Recorders
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish the names of all judges and recorders practising in the courts of England and Wales, together with(a) their annual salaries and (b) whether they possess graduate qualifications in a science subject.

  The Attorney-General
  As at 1 November 1991, in England and Wales there were over 800 judges including district judges, circuit judges, High Court judges and the more senior judiciary. There were also some 780 recorders, a few of whom were also district judges. The names of recorders, circuit judges, High Court judges and the more senior judiciary are published regularly in a number of reference books.

  The current annual salaries of judges, and of tribunal posts occupied by serving judges are set out in the table. The salaries are due to increase on 1 December 1991.

  The office of recorder is a part-time appointment and fees are paid for each day sat. The current daily rate is £281, but this will increase to £286 on 1 December 1991.

  Information about the educational qualifications of post-holders is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  575

  Judicial Salaries

  From 1 April 1991 £

  From 1 August 1991 £

  From 1 December 1991 £

  1. Lord Chief Justice

  102,950

  104,750

  2. Lords of Appeal Master of the Rolls

  95,150

  97,000

  3. Lords Justices of Appeal President of the Family Division Vice Chancellor

  91,400

  93,000

  4. High Court Judges

  82,800

  84,250

  4a. Official Referees (London)

  72,000

  73,250

  5. Senior Circuit Judges

  65,250

  66,500

  Recorder of Liverpool

  Recorder of Manchester

  Chief Social Security Commissioner (England and Wales)

  President, Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales)

  Judge Advocate General

  President, Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals (England and Wales)

  President, VAT Tribunals and Presiding Special Commissioner of Income Tax

  6. Circuit Judges Senior

  58,800

  59,900

  District Judge Family Division

  7. District Judges PRFD

  48,200

  49,100

  District Judges

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Partial Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the United Kingdom voted against the continuing of consultations by the President at the January 1991 partial test ban treaty amendment conference.

  Mr. Hogg
  We believe that the conference on disarmament provides the best forum for discussion on nuclear testing issues. We were therefore unable to support the idea of resuming the work of the PTBTAC.

  Iraqi Assets
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what means will Iraqi assets unfrozen on 22 November be allocated to the Iraqi Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraqi assets will be unfrozen only for direct payment to United Kingdom exporters of goods of British origin covered by a valid licence issued for the export of food, medicine and other humanitarian goods permitted under United Nations Security Council resolutions 661 and 687.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list details of those items that can be purchased with unfrozen Iraqi assets.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraqi assets unfrozen in this country can be used only to purchase from the United Kingdom 576
  food, medicine and other humanitarian goods as permitted under United Nations Security Council resolutions 661 and 687.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions will be imposed on the use of Iraqi unfrozen assets.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Iraqi assets unfrozen in this country may be used only to pay for exports from the United Kingdom of food, medicine and other humanitarian goods as permitted under United Nations Security Council resolutions 661 and 687.

  Mr. Robert Serry
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extradition of Robert Serry from the Turks and Caicos islands to Tampa, Florida, to face trial on charges relating to the trafficking of substantial quantities of cocaine.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The arrest of Robert Serry was the most significant since that of Carlos Lehder in February 1987. It is of immense credit to the forces of law and order in the dependent territory of the Turks and Caicos islands that they apprehended Serry in March 1991, and that the Attorney-General's chambers successfully conducted the case for his extradition to Florida. It is a mark of the close co-operation we and the US authorities maintain in the anti-narcotics campaign in the Caribbean.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Aid
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the funds which return to the United Kingdom for every £1 spent on(a) bilateral development aid and (b) multilateral development aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  On the basis of the figures for procurement now provided by the multilateral agencies, I estimate that for the period 1982–89 average procurement of British goods and services amounted to £1·40 for every £1 contributed by the United Kingdom to multilateral aid funds. Because the origin of goods and services purchased under the untied element of the bilateral aid programme is not recorded, it is not possible to make a similar estimate for bilateral aid.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the proportion of the bilateral aid budget fully and freely available for worldwide procurement, and untied, between the years 1979 to the present day.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The proportion of the gross bilateral aid programme which was untied in the years 1979–1990 (the latest year for which figures are available) is as follows:

  United Kingdom untied aid as a percentage of total United Kingdom gross bilateral aid 1979–1990

  Year

  Per cent.

  1979

  19·6

  1980

  26·0

  1981

  28·9

  1982

  25·1

  1983

  28·9

  1984

  34·8

  1985

  33·4

  1986

  25·3

  1987

  26·2

  1988

  29·7

  1989

  28·0

  1990

  28·7

ENERGY

  Coal Products Ltd.
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the loan which Coal Products Ltd. has negotiated from the European Coal and Steel Community.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I can confirm that Coal Products Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Coal, has been offered a £10,000,000 loan by the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The loan will attract an interest rate rebate worth about £1·8 million over the five-year life of the loan. The ECSC requires that the loan should be guaranteed. British Coal will act as guarantor and, in keeping with my predecessor's assurance to the House on 18 March 1988, the guarantee is being negotiated on commercial terms on an arm's-length basis.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the control on buildings and structures in connection with inland fish-farming operations, envisaged in annex A to his Department's monthly bulletin for August 1991, will come into effect.

  Mr. Yeo
  Very early in 1992.

  Toxic Waste Plants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria apply to his consideration of applications for toxic waste plants.

  Mr. Baldry
  Toxic waste plants require approval by local planning authorities in the light of criteria contained in development plans, waste disposal plans, and statutorily required environmental impact assessments. Waste treatment plants also need disposal licences from local waste disposal authorities and these licences are required to be determined in relation to risks of water pollution and danger to public health.

  Those plants involving incineration are also prescribed processes under part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This requires local authorisations regarding standards of emissions to air in relation to facilities with a capacity of less than 1 tonne per hour and for facilities of greater capacity a full authorisation by HMIP (thereby dispensing with the need for a disposal licence) covering emissions to all media. Guidance on the best available techniques not entailing excessive costs (BATNEEC) for the different types of plant is provided for HMIP and local authority inspectors.

  All such decisions are subject to appeal to the Secretary of State and he also has a right to call in planning applications, but he will generally do so only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. His criteria for deciding such cases must depend upon the specific issues brought before him by the parties involved.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on trends in atmospheric pollution caused by(a) nitrogen dioxide and (b) low-level ozone.

  Mr. Baldry
  Trends in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and low-level ozone are described in the second and first reports respectively of the United Kingdom photochemical oxidants review group, copies of which are in the Library of the House. In some rural areas, annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide doubled between 1979 and 1987. Urban areas showed no general trend. Any trends present in the levels of low-level ozone are masked by year to year variability.

  European Community (Visits)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list (i) the number of visits made by officials in his Department during the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on offical business related to the
  579
  European Community, (ii) the number of visits made by officials in his Department to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (iii) the number of nights spent by officials in his Department over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mr. Heseltine
  During the past month only one Minister in my Department has made such a visit. It was not to Brussels and entailed one night away from the United Kingdom.

  Local Government Finance (Sheffield)
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received of late from the Sheffield city council regarding the council tax.

  Mr. Key
  The Department has received two letters, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House on 14 October 1991.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make an announcement on next year's standard spending assessments; and if he will review the formula for calculating standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has now announced his proposals for next year's standard spending assessments. These include changes to some elements of the methodology, following consideration of representations from and discussion with the local authority associations and individual local authorities.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the grants available for voluntary organisations to help homeless people.

  Mr. Yeo
  Voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness receive grants under section 73 of the 1985 Housing Act. I have placed in the Library a list of the 99 projects in England which are funded in the current financial year. These are in addition to nearly 70 housing associations and voluntary organisations which are being funded under my Department's rough sleepers initiative.

  Water Company Chairmen
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give financial remuneration in terms of(a) salaries and (b) bonuses for the chairmen of each of the water public limited companies in (i) November 1990 and (ii) November 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  This is a matter on which the companies themselves report to their shareholders.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the representations he has received concerning section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 have been favourable and how many have criticised the section or the way it has worked.
  580
  Mr. Key
  Of the 126 representations about section 28 received by my Department since the section came into force, 37 of them were in favour of the section, 75 critical and 14 general queries expressing no preference.

  Landfill Gas
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish a revised edition of "Waste Management Paper No. 27" about landfill gas.

  Mr. Trippier
  The second edition of "Waste Management Paper No. 27" is being published today. This follows public consultation on a draft of the revised paper.

  The paper gives guidance on the monitoring and control of landfill gas and its publication follows a Government commitment in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" to publish detailed guidance on waste disposal techniques. Copies are being sent to the local authorities.

  The guidance takes into account developments in the Department's research programme on landfill gas. This research is continuing. Information gained from the research programme and developments in landfilling practices will be assessed for further updating of the paper in the future.

  Non-domestic Revaluation
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the valuation date for the 1995 non-domestic revaluation.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The next non-domestic property revaluation is due to come into force from 1 April 1995.

  I propose that the antecedent date, that is the common valuation date, for the 1995 revaluation will be 1 April 1993 and I will be laying the necessary regulations in due course. My decision will provide certainty for businesses and will allow adequate time for the assessment work to be carried out.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Visible Trade Deficit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cumulative United Kingdom visible trade deficit since June 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  A total of £81 billion.

  Taxes and National Insurance
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent forecast is for the proportion of non-oil gross domestic product that taxes and national insurance contributions will represent in 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  37·1 per cent.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of non-oil gross domestic product non-oil taxes and national insurance contributions represented in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  34·7 per cent. and 37·1 per cent. respectively.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of net tax yield to the Government was drawn from income tax in 1970–71, 1980–81, and 1990–91, respectively.

  Mr. Maude
  31 per cent. in 1970–71, 29 per cent. in 1980–81 and 27 per cent. in 1990–91.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current income tax yield from the top 5 per cent. of earners as a proportion of the total; and what was the equivalent figure in 1979.

  Mr. Maude
  It is estimated that in 1991–92 the top 5 per cent. of taxpayers will be liable to pay about 32 per cent. of the total yield of income tax. The corresponding figure for 1978–79 was 24 per cent.

  Japanese Investment
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Japanese investment into the European Community came to the United Kingdom in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  The latest information published by the Bank of Japan indicates that in 1990 just over half of Japanese direct investment in the European Community came to the United Kingdom.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of corporation tax for small companies; and what was the comparable figure 12 years ago.

  Mr. Maude
  The small companies rate of corporation tax is 25 per cent. compared with 42 per cent. at the time of the 1979 general election.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest forecast for the balance of payments deficit in 1992.

  Mr. Mellor
  In his autumn statement the Chancellor published a forecast for the current account deficit of £9½ billion in 1992.

  Economic Revival
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received over measures to revive the economy.

  Mr. Mellor
  A number. Many of them support the Government's determination to defeat inflation and thereby create the conditions for sustainable economic growth.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average annual rate of manufacturing investment between 1974 and 1979; and what it has been since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with his European Community counterparts on the progress in reaching an agreement on the draft treaty on economic and monetary union.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I attended the latest meeting of the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union on Monday 25 November. I shall attend a further meeting during the weekend of 30 November to 2 December.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of the Government's economic policies on employment over the last year.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effects the Government's economic policies have had on the level of unemployment over the last year.

  Mr. Mellor
  Such effects are not measurable. The Government's economic policies aim to foster sustainable growth of output and employment.

  TESSAs
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester, 13 November,Official Report, column 526, if he will review the operation of the TESSA regulations in the light of evidence that some banks and building societies presently refuse to accept TESSAs transferred from other issuers.

  Mr. Maude
  The TESSA rules are kept under regular review. The number of institutions unwilling so far to accept inward transfers amounts to a very small minority out of a total of 150 providers—and, of those, one has already changed its mind.

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the EC Ministerial Council meetings at which his Department has, or will be, represented during November and December.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I attended the meeting of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers on 11 November and will attend further meetings of that Council on 3 and 16 December. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury attended the meeting of the Budget Council on 12 November. In addition, I have attended, and will continue to attend, meetings of the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union.

  EC (Visits)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list (i) the number of visits made by officials in his Department during the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community,
  583
  (ii) the number of visits made by officials in his Department to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (iii) the number of nights spent by officials in his Department over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Officials in my Department made 58 visits in the month of October to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official EC business; of these visits 46 were to Brussels. Officials spent 76 nights away from the United Kingdom on official EC business in October.

  MIRAS
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated value of MIRAS in Scotland in(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1991–92.

  Mr. Maude
  Broad estimates based on the regional distribution of mortgage interest relief from an analysis of the family expenditure survey are as follows:

  Cost of mortgage interest relief for home owners in Scotland

  £ million

  1990–91

  530

  1991–92

  420

  The percentages of mortgage interest relief given at source through the MIRAS system are estimated at 87 per cent. for 1990–91 and 94 per cent. for 1991–92.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Investment
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science under what conditions agencies or authorities responsible to his Department have the right to invest funds surplus to their current requirements.

  Mr. Eggar
  Bodies which receive grant from the Department are generally responsible for their own decisions about the management of any funds they may be holding.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage increase there will have been in real terms between the United Kingdom science budget of 1978–79 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Based on actual expenditure and provision, the science budget in 1992–93 will be 31·8 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978·79. However, after making appropriate adjustments for certain transfers of funding responsibilities since 1978–79, including the proposed change in the dual-support arrangements, the increase will be 23–7 per cent.

  Capital Spending
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out by local education authority(a) the bids for capital spending on further education and (b) the capital allocations for further education for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91, respectively.
  584
  Mr. Fallon
  This information could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Standard Assessment Tests
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will publish information relating to the aggregate results in the standard assessment tests for key stage one for each local authority area, adjusted to take account of socio-economic and other factors in the manner of the DES statistical bulletin 13/84 or other similar appropriate manner;

  (2) if he will publish such information as he has available relating to the aggregate results in the standard assessment tests for key stage one by each local authority area, but in such a manner that individual schools may not be identified.

  Mr. Eggar
  As announced on 7 November at column 206, my right hon. and learned Friend intends to publish shortly the aggregate results of each local education authority in England, together with the national results. Individual schools will not be identified.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary schools in(a) England and (b) Wales were built before 1900.

  Mr. Fallon
  The Department does not maintain a record of the age of school buildings but the "Study of School Building" published in 1977, which was based on a sample survey of primary and secondary schools, reported that, of the then 23,000 primary schools in England and Wales, 8,000 were built before 1903.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for schools in Wales.

  Institut Laue-Langevin
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what conclusions the Science and Engineering Research Council has reached in its review of neutron facilities at the Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble and the ISIS source at its Rutherford-Appleton laboratory; how those conclusions relate to the present problems with the ILL reactor; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following its review of neutron beam requirements earlier this year, the Science and Engineering Research Council concluded that its expenditure in this area of science should be reduced by some £5 million a year from the previously planned level with effect from 1994–95.

  The council further concluded that its financial support for the ISIS facility should remain broadly in line with currently planned levels. It is therefore seeking a reduction in the level of the United Kingdom's contribution to the Institut Laue-Lagevin (ILL) beyond 1993.

  The council's aim is to reach a satisfactory agreement with our French and German partners in the ILL both on the question of the future level of United Kingdom participation and on the related question of a repair plan for the reactor. To achieve this the United Kingdom is proposing that the present ILL convention should be

  585
  superseded from 1 January 1994; formal notice to this effect, as required under the convention, will be given before the end of 1991.

  The United Kingdom delegation will be making a statement on the United Kingdom's position to the ILL council, now meeting in Grenoble, later today. A copy of that statement is being placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  NHS Expenditure
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure on the national health service in each of the years from 1978–79 to date; what allocations have been made in those years to the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority; and what variations respectively these represent in relation to the increases in national expenditure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows changes in gross NHS expenditure in England and in expenditure—as far as it can be identified—in the area covered by Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority. The latter figures include all revenue and capital expenditure by the district health authority; the cost of capital schemes within the district borne by the North East Thames regional health authority; and expenditure on family health services, which is not strictly attributable to particular districts. Revenue expenditure incurred by North East Thames for the region as a whole and expenditure met nationally by the Department of Health and organisations providing central services to the NHS are excluded.

  Capital expenditure for particular localities tends to vary year on year, mostly reflecting changes in the pattern of capital investment throughout the country—for example, in the case of Barking, Havering and Brentwood, completion of the redevelopment of Harold Wood hospital in 1987–88, and the construction of a school of nursing and an extension at High Wood hospital in 1988–89.

  NHS expenditure, England

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority1 expenditure

  Gross total (£ million)

  Percentage cash change

  Total (£ thousand)

  Percentage cash change

  1978–79

  6,525

  —

  46,318

  —

  1979–80

  7,755

  18·9

  54,516

  17·7

  1980–81

  10,103

  30·3

  71,771

  31·7

  1981–82

  11,329

  12·1

  78,848

  9·9

  1982–83

  12,353

  9·0

  85,471

  8·4

  1983–84

  13,114

  6·2

  89,621

  4·9

  1984–85

  14,102

  7·5

  97,246

  8·5

  1985–86

  14,923

  5·8

  102,935

  5·9

  1986–87

  16,043

  7·5

  108,522

  5·4

  1987–88

  17,642

  10·0

  121,899

  12·3

  1988–89

  19,587

  11·0

  132,211

  8·5

  1989–90

  21,089

  7·7

  134,984

  2·1

  1990–91

  23,637

  12·1

  2—

  2—

  1991–923

  26,618

  12·6

  2—

  2—

  1 Source:

  Annual accounts of the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority and its predecessor area health authority and those of the North East Thames regional health authority (RHA).

  Annual accounts of the Barking and Havering family health services authority.

  2 Not yet available.

  3 Estimated outturn.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting list, region by region, for magnetic resonance imaging assessment/treatment.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Waiting list information is not collected centrally by intended diagnostic procedure or treatment.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role he envisages for community health councils in the implementation of the patients charter.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Community health councils continue to have an important role to play in identifying issues of local concern and in acting as a communication channel between authorities and the people they serve.

  Asthma
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest information he has on the morbidity associated with asthma in terms of lost schooling and sickness absence.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There is significant morbidity associated with asthma in terms of lost schooling and sickness absence. More than 5·5 million days of certified sickness absence were recorded in Britain in 1987–88, representing about 7 million actual days lost. Information is not available centrally on absences from school associated with asthma.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will designate the effective treatment and care of asthma as one of the first set of key areas for targeting;

  (2) what responses he has received relating to asthma in response to his White Paper "The Health of the Nation" Cm. 1523.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No decision has yet been made on which key areas will be included in the White Paper. We have received 2,050 responses to the Green Paper. Many of these welcomed the suggestion that asthma should be a priority area for the White Paper.

  Abortion
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about Medway health authority's decision to restrict the abortion service available on the national health service to certain groups; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received one representation on abortion services in Medway district health authority. The level of NHS terminations in the Medway authority were just below the national average —42 per cent.—in 1990 and are likely to be above it at the end of 1991.

  "Health of the Nation"
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses his Department has received to the "Health of the Nation" Green Paper; and how many of these called for a ban on tobacco advertising.
  587
  Mr. Dorrell
  Of the 2,050 replies sent to the Department from organisations and individuals, over 75 per cent. have discussed smoking-related issues. Many have called for a ban on the advertising of tobacco.

  Homeless People
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will collate and publish information from the national health service, coroners courts and police services on the cost of providing emergency health care to homeless people.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a table listing United Kingdom public expenditure on health as a percentage of gross national product together with comparable figures in other European Community countries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that total United Kingdom spending on the NHS in 1991–92 will amount to 5·6 per cent. of GDP, rising to 5·7 per cent. in 1992–93. This compares with a figure of 4·7 per cent. in 1978–79. We do not have comparable figures for other European Community countries.

  Vehicle Disinfection
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that commercial vehicles used for bulk transport of meat and bonemeal are properly disinfected before subsequently being used for the transport of food for human consumption.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Food Hygiene (Market Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations 1966, as amended, already make it an offence to use insanitary vehicles to transport food. They also require food businesses to keep delivery vehicles clean and in good repair and order.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to family health service authorities on the allocation of money for information technology to general practitioner practices.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This is contained in "Family Health Services Letter (91)57", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Hospitals (European Patients)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his practice to maintain lists of health authorities in England and Wales offering operations and convalescent holidays to patients from European countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No.

  Hospital Wards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital wards in each health region have been converted for administrative use during each year since 1979.
  588
  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Project 2000
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects all nursing students to be within the Project 2000 scheme in England.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Implementation of Project 2000 began in 1989. By the end of the current financial year, nearly 60 per cent. of the colleges and schools of nursing in England will have received approval to run Project 2000 and £109 million will have been made available centrally towards the cost of implementation. Our aim is to complete implementation as soon as possible; the precise completion date will depend on the funding which can be made available given other competing priorities.

  Counterfeit Medicines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments his Department has undertaken of the sales and production of counterfeit medicines in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virgina Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 18 November,Official Report, column 40.

  NHS Statistics (Sunderland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will call for a report from the chairman of the Northern regional health authority regarding(a) the number of administrative jobs and (b) the cost of administration in the Sunderland district for each of the last three years and the projected figures for 1992.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Responsibility for administrative costs in local health services rests with the local district health authority. The hon. Member may wish to write to Mr. Frank Cronin, the chairman of Sunderland health authority, for details.

  Traffic Casualties
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list for each year since 1979 the amount of money collected by the national health service in respect of payment for ambulance services to traffic casualties;

  (2) if he will list for each year since 1979 the amount of money collected by the national health service in respect of payment for hospital treatment of traffic casualties.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: There is no charge for the NHS emergency ambulance service. When patients are treated by medical practitioners following a road traffic accident, two separate charges may be payable. An emergency treatment fee may be claimed at a flat rate, currently £19·30, when any qualified medical practitioner provides immediate medical treatment following a road traffic accident. Health authorities and NHS trusts may collect this fee if the initial treatment is provided at an NHS hospital. The fee is payable by vehicle users and must be covered by motor insurance policies.

  In addition, hospitals can collect charges for any subsequent in or out-patient treatment up to maximum

  589
  levels, currently £2,667 and £267 respectively. These charges can normally be claimed only from motor insurers, and only if the insurer has made a payment in respect of death or bodily injury arising from the road traffic accident.

  The total income to health authorities in England from these charges has been as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  1·438

  1980–81

  2·723

  1981–82

  4·198

  1982–83

  5·894

  1983–84

  6·950

  1984–85

  7·324

  1985–86

  7·916

  1986–87

  7·871

  1987–88

  8·687

  1988–89

  8·748

  1989–90

  9·256

  Information relating to 1990–91 is not yet available.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidance requiring local authorities to disregard attendance allowance when determining charges for personal social services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 November 1991]: Local authorities have discretionary powers to charge for domiciliary and day-care services. If charges are made authorities must take into account what it is reasonably practicable for an individual to pay. It is proposed to issue guidance to authorities about the use of these powers.

  The Government's view is that the full economic cost of providing a service should be recovered where this can be done without causing hardship to the service user.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Downgrade
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons it was decided to downgrade social security benefits of a claimant after a period of hospital in-patient care of six weeks but to allow benefits to remain unchanged for up to 12 months for those claimants admitted to residential or nursing care.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Most social security benefits are reduced after six weeks of free in-patient treatment in hospital. These arrangements are based on the view that state funds should not make double provision for the same need. As the national health service provides free maintenance as well as free treatment, it has always been the policy that maintenance benefits paid from state funds should not continue to be paid in full indefinitely.

  By contrast, people who enter residential care homes or nursing homes do not receive free maintenance from public funds, but have to pay for the services provided by the home. For this reason, most benefits other than income support are not affected by admission to such homes. Because income support provides assistance with the fees for residential or nursing care, the amount of benefit that can be paid is normally amended as soon as the claimant
  590
  incurs such fees. However, the temporary admission of one partner to residential or nursing care may have no effect on the amount of benefit that can be paid if to pay for each partner as separate individuals would result in the couple's benefit entitlement being reduced. This arrangement can last for up to 12 months, after which time the couple are assessed separately.

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount of poll tax collected in 1990–91 from direct deductions in benefit from offices covering the Nottingham, North constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  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. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the EC Ministerial Council meetings at which his Department has or will be represented during November and December.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department attended the Labour and Social Affairs Council meeting on 6 November and is planning to attend the next meeting on 3 December.

  Carer's Premium
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any proposals to remove the anomaly whereby people aged over 65 years are not entitled to carer's premium due to retirement benefit being counted as an overlapping benefit, but people who reach the age of 65 years with an underlying entitlement such as invalidity pension will be allowed to continue receiving carer's premium if they are already in receipt of it.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The carer premium was introduced in October 1990 in the relevant income-related benefits on top of all other premiums primarily to provide extra benefit to people of working age who are unable to work or whose employment is restricted because they care for a severely disabled person. As such it goes to carers who can establish entitlement to invalid care allowance. A person over the age of 65 years would not be able to establish entitlement to that benefit if caring starts after that age. But a carer who has established entitlement to invalid care allowance and the carer premium before reaching 65 years may retain those entitlements beyond that age to recognise the former limitations on employment through the caring role. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Family Credit
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the proposed family credit ceilings in 1992–93 for each of(a) a married couple with one child aged under five years, (b) a married couple with two children aged under 11 years, (c) a married couple with two children aged over 11 years, (d) a married couple with three children aged under 11 years,

  591
  (e) a married couple with three children aged over 11 years and (f) a married couple with two children aged under 11 years and two children over 11 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At the new benefit levels proposed for April 1992 the family credit ceiling represented by the highest amount of net earnings and other relevant income a family can have and still qualify for family credit at the minimum payment of 50p will be as follows:

  £

  Married couple with one child under 5 years

  139·32

  Married couple with two children aged under 11

  154·18

  Married couple with two children aged over 11 (but under 16)

  173·75

  Married couple with three children aged under 11

  169·03

  Married couple with three children aged over 11 (but under 16)

  198·39

  Married couple with two children aged under 11 and two children over 11 years (but under 16)

  203·46

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the rate of child benefit in 1987 for(a) first children and (b) other children, in current prices.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In April 1987 the rate of child benefit was £7·25 a week for each child, which is equivalent to £9·62 at October 1991 prices. From April 1992 we are increasing the rate for the eldest qualifying child to £9·65.

  Disablement Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow,Official Report, 18 November, column 7, (a) how many of the 1,367 claims for disablement benefit were successful, (b) how many went to appeal at a tribunal, (c) what was the average amount paid out to successful claimants, (d) what was the total amount paid out in respect of these claims and (e) how many are awaiting hearings at appeal tribunals.

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

  Student Nurses
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which social security benefits are potentially available to a single nursing student assuming that the student is not pursuing a Project 2000 course of nursing, is under 25, single and able-bodied.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Nursing students who are not pursuing a Project 2000 course have access to the normal range of social security benefits, provided the appropriate qualifying conditions are met.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many nursing students claimed community charge benefit in 1990–91.
  592
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what minimum level of community charge would be required for a nursing student to be able to claim community charge benefit in the current financial year, assuming that(a) the student is aged under 25 years, single, is not pursuing a Project 2000 course of nursing and has a net weekly income of £96·83 and (b) the student is aged over 25 years, single, is not pursuing a Project 2000 course of nursing and has a net weekly income of £96·83.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The personal community charge would need to be nearly £595 or higher before any community charge benefit would be payable.

  (b) The personal community charge would need to be about £511 or higher before any community charge benefit would be payable.

  Notes:

  The exemplifications assume that the single student nurse is not a lone parent or disabled. In these circumstances student nurses would he entitled to some benefit at lower charge levels.

  Most student nurses will have benefited in full from the £140 reduction in community charges under the Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991.

  Reduced Earning Allowance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims were made for payments of backdated reduced earning allowance in each of the past four years in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Greenock and Port Glasgow; how many of these applications were successful; what was the average payment made; and what was the total amount paid in each of the past three years in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Greenock and Port Glasgow.

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

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people with a net weekly income of £96·83 claimed community charge benefit in 1990–91.

  Miss Widdecombe
  It is estimated that about 25,000 claimants with a net income of between £96 and £97 were in receipt of community charge benefit in May 1990.

  Source:

  The Housing Benefit/Community Charge Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry for May 1990. However, data for May 1990 underestimates the number of recipients of Community Charge Benefit because some people who were entitled to benefit had not had their benefit claims assessed by then.

  Note:

  The figures exclude those in receipt of Income Support and in cases involving couples, the income specified is for the couple and not an individual person.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will outline the benefit arrangements that will apply under the new council tax; and if he will make a statement.
  593
  Mr. Newton
  Under provisions in the Local Government Finance Bill currently before the House, council tax benefit will replace community charge benefit from April 1993. People on income support or equivalent levels of income will be entitled to maximum rebates of up to 100 per cent. of their council tax liability, rather than the 80 per cent. maximum under community charge benefit.

  Amounts are currently included in the income-related benefit levels to help towards the 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge that everyone has to pay. From next April, these will amount, in total, to an estimated £680 million a year.

  Following the statement I made to the House on 21 October, in which I indicated that the Government did not propose to make a reduction in benefit rates corresponding to this year's £140 reduction in community charge, I am glad to be able to announce also that there will be no reduction in the value of income-related benefit levels on the introduction of the new council tax to reflect the fact that benefit recipients will no longer be expected to meet their 20 per cent. liability for the community charge. This will mean that from April 1993, income support levels will be at least £1·40 a week higher for single people, and £2·80 a week higher for couples, than they might otherwise have been.

  Generally speaking, the detailed arrangements for the new council tax benefit will follow the rules that currently apply to all other income-related benefits, including the same structure of personal allowances and premiums, the treatment of capital and the defintions of earnings and income. For those with income above their appropriate applicable amount we propose that council tax benefit will be reduced by 20p for every £1 of excess income, compared with a reduction of 15p for every £1 of excess income under community charge benefit. However, those on the lowest levels of income will gain from the introduction of 100 per cent. maximum rebates and the decision not to adjust benefit levels on the introduction of the new tax and, overall, benefit entitlement will extend to claimants with broadly the same levels of income as those currently helped by community charge benefit.

  It is reasonable to assume that non-dependant adults sharing the household on a non-commercial basis with a benefit claimant should be expected to make some contribution to the council tax bill. There will, therefore, be a system of non-dependant deductions in the new council tax benefit scheme, as there is for housing benefit. For those non-dependants who are not in full-time work or whose income is below a prescribed level (£100 a week in 1992–93 terms) the deduction will be £1 a week. For those in full-time work on higher incomes the deduction will be £2 a week. There will be no deduction where the non-dependant is on income support or would otherwise attract a discount.

  The new council tax benefit will be uprated each year along with the other income-related benefits. As part of my uprating statement on 21 October, columns 639–45, I announced that the Rossi index had been revised this year to align more exactly with those costs which people are expected to meet from their benefit, thus bringing within it 20 per cent. of community charge, water rates, and certain miscellaneous housing costs not previously included. This
  594
  approach, which has been widely supported, will naturally entail a further adjustment to the calculation of the index for the April 1993 uprating, to reflect the fact that there will be no minimum contribution to the council tax. Water rates and miscellaneous housing costs will of course continue to be taken into account.

  The new council tax benefit scheme will also provide help in respect of non-dependants on low incomes living as the second adult in households where the person liable for the new tax is not receiving a rebate on the basis of his own income. In response to the concerns of the local authority associations to minimise the administrative complexity of the new scheme, rebates for second adults will be assessed on a similar basis to non-dependant deductions. A maximum 25 per cent. rebate will be awarded in respect of a second adult or adults on income support. Lower levels of rebate will apply in respect of second adults with gross incomes above prescribed levels. In relation to 1992–93 income levels, the rebates would be as follows:

  Percentage rebate

  Second adults with combined income less than £100 a week

  15

  Second adults with combined income between £100 and £130 a week

  7½

  Second adults with combined income of £130 a week or more

  1

  1 No rebate.

  The detailed arrangements for the new council tax benefit scheme will be set out in draft regulations on which we will be consulting with the local authority associations in due course. The draft regulations will also be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee and will be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

  Overall it is expected that the new council tax benefit scheme will bring help to some 5 million claimants (between one in four and one in five of all council tax payers). At current benefit and estimated council tax levels the cost of the scheme would be around £1·1 billion a year.

WALES

  Hospital Statistics
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the hospital bed percentage occupancy rate for each district health authority in Wales in 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Prior to 1981, Pembrokeshire and East Dyfed DHAs existed as one authority (Dyfed DHA) and, therefore, it is not possible to give figures in the form requested. The available information is given in the following table.

  Performance targets will be set for bed occupancy rates in the shortly to be published updated version of "NHS Wales: Agenda for Action".

  Our target is for the percentage for NHS non-psychiatric hospital beds occupied to increase from 73·6 per cent. in 1990–91 to 78 per cent. by 1994–95.
  595

  Percentage Bed occupancy rates

  1974–79

  1979–81

  1982–1990–911

  All beds

  Non-psychiatric beds

  All beds

  Non-psychiatric beds

  All beds

  Non-psychiatric beds

  Clwyd

  73·6

  73·3

  75·5

  72·0

  77·6

  74·0

  Dyfed

  78·9

  74·4

  78·7

  75·1

  n/a

  n/a

  East Dyfed

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  79·7

  77·1

  Gwent

  77·1

  73·9

  76·5

  75·7

  78·8

  75·7

  Gwynedd

  79·5

  77·2

  82·3

  79·8

  75·5

  74·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  81·1

  75·0

  80·3

  74·8

  79·1

  73·4

  Pembrokeshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  73·9

  73·7

  Powys

  79·7

  71·1

  78·9

  79·2

  78·8

  77·6

  South Glamorgan

  81·9

  78·5

  81·8

  77·7

  78·8

  76·3

  West Glamorgan

  76·1

  72·5

  75·7

  71·8

  74·6

  70·9

  Wales

  78·6

  74·8

  78·7

  75·2

  77·9

  74·5

  1 Due a change in 1988 from collecting data on the basis of a calendar year to that of a financial year the information used to calculate this figure excludes data for the first quarter of 1988.

  NHS
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new procedures and treatments have been added to the national health service in Wales since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Detailed information on new procedures and treatments added to the NHS in Wales is not held centrally. However, the NHS is continually expanding the provision of innovative services for patients and the introduction of lasers, endoscopes, new forms of anaesthetics and drugs, as well as imaging devices, enable clinicians in Wales to undertake a wider range of procedures and treatments which benefit a broader range of patients within the population.

  Welsh Flag
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to fly the Welsh dragon flag on the Britannia bridge between Arfon and Ynys Môn.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The flying of flags on the Britannia bridge is not a matter for determination by my Department.

  Surgical Operations
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of operations in Wales for(a) hernias, (b) varicose veins and (c) hip replacements in 1979 and at the latest available date.

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

  Principal Operations1

  1979

  1989

  Hernias2

  3,703

  4,787

  Varicose Veins

  747

  2,121

  Hip Replacements3

  1,501

  2,407

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

  2 Includes inguinal, fermoral and abdominal hernias but excludes hiatus or diaphragmatic hernias.

  3 Includes replacement of head of femur for 1989.

  Compact Schemes
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to establish compact schemes in Wales.
  596
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  There are four compacts operating in Wales, in south Glamorgan, mid Glamorgan, west Glamorgan and Clwyd. Training and enterprise councils will be able to bid for funding in respect of areas not already covered in their business plans for 1992–93.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas in Wales where business-education partnerships have been established; and how much money his Department has allocated to each of them.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Education-business partnerships have been established in every county in Wales. A total of £260,000 has been allocated for operational funding in Wales for the current year, but the amount that each partnership will receive will depend on local circumstances and activity.

  Maternity Confinement
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average length of time for maternity confinements in Wales in(a) 1961, (b) 1971, (c) 1979 and (d) at the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on length of maternity confinements is available centrally only for those deliveries which took place in hospital from 1982 onwards. The average length of stay for a patient whose hospital stay included a recorded delivery is given as follows for 1982 and 1989:

  Average length of stay of delivery episodes

  Days

  1982

  5·2

  1989

  4·8

  Information on the average length of stay of all obstetrics and all GP maternity hospital stays is, however, available for the years requested and is given in the following table. Figures for 1982 are also given for comparison purposes:

  Average length of stay

  1Obstetrics Days

  1GP maternity Days

  1961

  10·3

  9·2

  1971

  6·2

  5·5

  1979

  5·5

  4·7

  1982

  4·7

  4·6

  1989·90

  3·7

  3·7

  597
  1 Includes cases in which no delivery occurs.

  The information illustrates one of the factors leading to a reduced demand for beds in the modern NHS.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning his recent inward investment mission to Japan, Australia and the United States of America; what was the total cost of the mission; how many firms with prospects of investment in Wales were visited on each leg of the mission; what was the additional cost to the agency of the participation by Mr. Simon Cohen of Lowe Bell; why the company visit scheduled for the United States leg of the mission was cancelled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have frequent meetings with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss a range of matters, including inward investment. The matters raised are the responsibility of the agency. I understand, however, that the total cost of the mission was approximately £28,000. Fourteen individual companies were visited and group discussions with companies were held on nine occasions. I understand that the cost of Mr. Shimon Cohen's participation was £7,500, and that the proposed company visit in Los Angeles could not go ahead because senior staff in the company were no longer available.

  Medical Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the average pay of nurses and doctors in Wales increased between 1974 and 1979 and between 1979 to the latest available date, in cash and in real terms.

  Year

  Capital Expenditure (cash) £ million

  Increase £ million

  Capital Expenditure (real terms)1 £ million

  Increase/ decrease £ million

  1974–75

  13·182

  —

  55·348

  —

  1979–80

  21·777

  8·595

  43·619

  (11·729)

  1982–902

  70·462

  48·685

  70·462

  27·843

  Notes:

  1 'real' in terms of 1989–90 prices.

  2latest period for which detailed capital expenditure information is available.

  My hon. Friend will note the dramatic difference between the cuts in real terms between 1974–1979 in hospital capital expenditure compared with the welcome increases between 1979/1989–90.

  Change 1974 to 1979

  Change 1979 to 1990–91

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  In-patients

  20,722

  +6·3

  132,750

  +38·0

  New out-patients

  15,293

  -3·4

  122,725

  +28·6

  Day cases

  13,140

  +72·8

  72,603

  +232·9

  The increases in patients treated since 1979 are a tribute to the staff of the NHS and the Government who have provided record increases in resources for the service.
  598
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Separate information for Wales is not held centrally.

  On a Great Britain basis the cumulative average percentage increases in pay rates expressed in cash and real terms for the two periods is as follows:

  Percentage increase in cash pay (a)

  Percentage increase in real pay (b)

  Nurses, Midwives and Health visitors

  1974–79

  64·7

  (-21·1)

  1979–91

  242·5

  48·7

  Hospital Doctors and Dentists

  1974–79

  88·3

  (-9·9)

  1979–1991

  196·5

  28·7

  (a) Percentage cash increases reflect full year effect of increases agreed within the pay round year (August-July).

  (b) Percentage real increases reflect percentage cash increases for the pay round year deflated by the increase in the Retail Prices Index throughout the pay round year.

  Hospital Building Programme
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the capital hospital building programme in Wales increased between 1974 and 1979 and between 1979 and the latest available date, in cash and in real terms.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information is not available centrally in the form requested due to the delegation to district health authorities of responsibility for most hospital building schemes since 1984. Overall capital expenditure on hospitals in Wales over the period in question was as follows:

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the increase in numbers of(a) in-patients, (b) out-patients and (c) day-patients treated by the national health service in Wales between 1974 to 1979 and 1979 to the latest available date.

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

  EC (Visits)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list (i) the number of visits made by officials in his Department during the past month to destinations outside
  599
  the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (ii) the number of visits made by officials in his Department to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (iii) the number of nights spent by officials in his Department over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information, which relates to the four-week period from 28 October 1991, is as follows:

  Number

  (i)

  9

  (ii)

  7

  (iii)

  11

  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for himself, and for each of the Ministers at his Department, details of(a) the number of visits made in the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (b) the number of visits made to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (c) the number of nights spent over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The information, which relates to the four-week period from 28 October 1991, is as follows:

  Number

  (a)

  1

  (b)

  1

  (c)

  None

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the EC Ministerial Council meetings at which his Department has or will be represented during November and December.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Secretary of State for Wales was represented at the Agriculturel Council held on 18–19 November and will be represented at the forthcoming Agriculturel Council on 11–12 December.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average waiting lists for hearing aids at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, and at the Royal Gwent hospital, Newport.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Statistical Publications
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of each statistical publication produced by his Department during 1989, 1990 and to date in 1991 have been delivered to the Vote Office in the House of Commons.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Fifty copies of each statistical publication on an all-Wales basis are delivered to the Vote Office.
  600
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to make available to the Vote Office of the House of Commons additional copies of all his departmental statistical publications.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is my Department's policy to make 50 copies of all statistical publications on an all-Wales basis available to the Vote Office. Additional copies are available on request.

  Housing (Cardiganshire)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses have been built in Cardiganshire during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  A total of 176 houses and 37 flats were completed in Cardiganshire (Ceredigion district) from October 1990 to September 1991.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children are being educated at independent schools in Wales; what the corresponding figures were for 1961, 1970 and 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of children at independent schools in January 1961, 1970, 1980 and 1991 was 15,438, 11,166, 12,703 and 12,144 respectively.

  Youth Centres
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to assist the Urdd to set up another centre similar to the Llangrannog and Glan-Llyn centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I am happy to say that the Urdd has been successful with an application for grant from the European regional development fund. A grant of £33,992 has been approved towards accommodation and other facilities at Canolfan centre Iran, near Crymmych, in Dyfed.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies he has made of the report on fuel poverty published on 15 November by Neighbourhood Energy Action, entitled "Ten Years Cold"; what is his assessment of the accuracy of its figures; how he intends to respond to its recommendations for action; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I shall be giving careful consideration to the reports recommendations.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) homelessness inquiries, (b) homelessness cases and (c) accepted homelessness cases were referred to his office between January and June 1991, by district.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is given in the following table. Numbers of inquiries relate to all contacts made with local authorities regarding
  601
  homelessness, excluding telephone inquiries. Those inquiries which become substantive are referred to as presented cases.

  Homelessness activity, by district, for the period January—June 1991

  District

  Inquiries

  Cases presented

  Cases accepted

  Aberconwy

  77

  77

  24

  Alyn and Deeside

  145

  130

  114

  Arfon

  26

  20

  20

  Blaenau Gwent

  268

  234

  195

  Brecknock

  52

  52

  46

  Cardiff

  1,111

  1,044

  799

  Carmarthen

  39

  42

  39

  Ceredigion

  70

  70

  68

  Colwyn

  26

  17

  17

  Cynon Valley

  351

  340

  220

  Delyn

  587

  379

  142

  Dinefwr

  121

  121

  100

  Dwyfor

  30

  29

  14

  Glyndwr

  19

  16

  16

  Islwyn

  201

  169

  76

  Llanelli

  68

  68

  68

  Lliw Valley

  76

  58

  45

  Meirionnydd

  96

  54

  53

  Merthyr Tydfil

  100

  100

  73

  Monmouth

  127

  127

  92

  Montgomeryshire

  96

  64

  64

  Neath

  243

  197

  181

  Newport

  593

  593

  593

  Ogwr

  481

  335

  259

  Port Talbot

  230

  199

  70

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  73

  56

  48

  Radnorshire

  10

  10

  10

  Rhondda

  59

  54

  53

  Rhuddlan

  78

  36

  28

  Rhymney Valley

  476

  129

  93

  South Pembrokeshire

  52

  52

  43

  Swansea

  775

  534

  434

  Taff-Ely

  349

  309

  138

  Torfaen

  635

  498

  269

  Vale of Glamorgan

  501

  501

  216

  Wrexham Maelor

  552

  539

  223

  Ynys Môn

  59

  31

  27

  Wales Total

  8,852

  7,284

  4,970

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons were involved in accepted homelessness cases(a) between January and June 1990, excluding any impact from the Towyn flood disaster and (b) between January and June 1991, by district.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The information requested is given in the following table and excludes those persons made homeless as a result of the Towyn flood disaster.

  Persons involved in cases accepted by local authorities as being homeless under section 58 of the Housing Act 1985

  January-June 1990

  January-June 1991

  Aberconwy

  86

  64

  Alyn and Deeside

  189

  305

  Arfon

  34

  58

  Blaenau Gwent

  424

  469

  Brecknock

  142

  151

  Cardiff

  1,264

  1,900

  Carmarthen

  86

  91

  Ceredigion

  165

  164

  Colwyn

  46

  60

  Cynon Valley

  280

  638

  Delyn

  518

  361

  Dinefwr

  58

  214

  Dwyfor

  101

  45

  Glyndwr

  25

  46

  602

  January-June 1990

  January-June 1991

  Islwyn

  195

  173

  Llanelli

  159

  153

  Lliw Valley

  230

  124

  Meirionnydd

  134

  132

  Merthyr Tydfil

  273

  207

  Monmouth

  136

  229

  Montgomeryshire

  90

  135

  Neath

  274

  347

  Newport

  1,504

  1,570

  Ogwr

  524

  642

  Port Talbot

  162

  194

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  138

  129

  Radnorshire

  24

  20

  Rhondda

  73

  137

  Rhuddlan

  146

  97

  Rhymney Valley

  260

  247

  South Pembrokeshire

  143

  114

  Swansea

  185

  964

  Taff-Ely

  293

  365

  Torfaen

  775

  533

  Vale of Glamorgan

  603

  624

  Wrexham Maelor

  452

  379

  Ynys Mon

  28

  72

  Wales Total

  10,219

  12,153

  Employment Initiatives
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 115, to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), when he expects the number of 1991 school leavers in south Glamorgan still awaiting places on courses complying with the youth training guarantee to reach less than (a) 250, (b) 100 and (c)

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are under a clear contractual duty to ensure that every young person under 18 not in full-time education or in a job who is seeking entry to youth training should have the offer of a suitable training place. I expect the South Glamorgan TEC to make every effort to ensure that young people receive timely offers of training and I am satisfied that the TEC has sufficient resources to meet the guarantee.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 115, to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, what number of (a) Easter and (b) summer school leavers in 1991 in south Glamorgan have been waiting more than (i) one month, (ii) three months and (iii) six months to commence placements or courses under the youth training guarantee.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available.

  National Health Service Staff Statistics
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the numbers of managerial and administrative staff in the health service in Wales in 1973; and what is the present number.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The available information relates to staff included in the administrative and clerical group for pay purposes. The whole-time equivalent number of such staff in 1973 and 1990 is given in the following table:
  603

  Whole time equivalent1

  Percentage of total National Health Service staff

  1973

  4,574

  11

  19902

  8,178

  15

  1 At 30 September.

  2 Excludes staff in Dyfed FHSA, for which figures are not available.

  The number of nursing and midwifery staff increased from 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the total national health service staff in the same period.

  Ceredigion Unit
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Wales if he will make it his policy not to confirm the present acting head of the Ceredigion unit of the East Dyfed health authority in his post before the general election.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The appointment of a unit general manager is an operational issue for the East Dyfed health authority as employer.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of how the shadow trust board for the Ceredigion health unit was chosen; if he will list the members; and if he will give their appropriate qualifications.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There is no such board.

  Non-domestic Revaluation
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the valuation date for the 1995 non-domestic rating revaluation of properties in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The next non-domestic property revaluation for Wales is due to come into force from 1 April 1995.

  I propose that the antecedent date, that is the common valuation date, for the 1995 revaluation will be 1 April 1993 and I will be laying the necessary regulations in due course. My decision will provide certainty for businesses and will allow adequate time for the assessment work to be carried out.

  Our success in bringing down the rate of inflation means that the proposed non-domestic rate poundage for Wales for 1992–93 of 0·425 increases by just over 4 per cent. compared with just under 11 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1991–92. The contribution to local government spending by rate payers will in total increase by 2·1 per cent.

  I have also laid before the House a draft order under the transitional arrangements setting the level of reductions for 1992–93 for businesses that benefit from lower rates. The reductions are 9 per cent. for properties with a rateable value of over £10,000 and 14 per cent. for other properties. The transitional arrangements are self-financing and the reductions have been calculated to off set the cost of limiting the levels of increase for those whose rates are higher.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Income Support
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons aged 16 and 17 years respectively, for each month since October 1989, have made applications for income support on grounds of extreme hardship; how many have been(a) granted or (b) refused; what is the best estimate he has of the number of persons aged 16 and 17 years respectively in that period who had been granted income support on the grounds of being within an exempted category; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Social security operational matters are the responsibility of Mr. Alex Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Child Benefit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons aged 16 and 17 years respectively were in receipt of extended child benefit; how many were in receipt of bridging allowance for each month since September 1989; how many young people exhausted their entitlement to either extended child benefit or the eight weeks bridging allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The number of young people in receipt of bridging allowance each month since September 1989 is given in the table.

  Information showing the numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds who had exhausted their entitlement to bridging allowance in the 12-month period is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child benefit, as with other social security matters, are the responsibility of Mr. Alex Wylie, chief executive of the Social Security Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies of his reply will be placed in the Library and Public Information Office.

  Number of young people in receipt of YTP bridging allowance at:

  Number

  29 September 1989

  465

  27 October 1989

  374

  24 November 1989

  279

  29 December 1989

  223

  26 January 1990

  262

  23 February 1990

  346

  30 March 1990

  307

  27 April 1990

  320

  25 May 1990

  293

  29 June 1990

  277

  27 July 1990

  267

  31 August 1990

  282

  28 September 1990

  244

  26 October 1990

  223

  30 November 1990

  187

  28 December 1990

  156

  25 January 1991

  248

  22 February 1991

  298

  29 March 1991

  313

  26 April 1991

  244

  31 May 1991

  242

  28 June 1991

  192

  26 July 1991

  190

  605

  Number

  30 August 1991

  210

  27 September 1991

  174

  25 October 1991

  153

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the number of category A prisoners in prisons in Northern Ireland on 1 November.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are no category A prisoners in Northern Ireland, where prisoners are classified as top, high, medium or low risk. High risk is broadly equivalent to the category A classification in England and Wales. The number of high-risk prisoners on 1 November is not available, but on 22 November there were 323 such prisoners.

  Farm Woodland Scheme
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the new farm woodland scheme; and if he will state when the cash limit will be known.

  Mr. Hanley
  I welcome the new farm woodland premium scheme which will be operated in Northern Ireland under the same terms and conditions as for the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Uptake under the existing scheme, introduced in 1988, has declined substantially and I trust that the new enhanced rates of premiums and the general front-loading of the new scheme will encourage Northern Ireland farmers to participate to a greater extent than they have in the past.

  Cash limits will be known prior to the launch of the scheme on 1 April 1992.

  EC (Visits)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for himself, and for each of the Ministers at his Department, details of(a) the number of

  Person

  Alleged Offence

  Gerard M. Harte

  (Possession of firearms/arson)

  John M. Fletcher

  (Theft of ammunition/ possession of firearms with intent)

  Robert Russell

  (Escape from Custody/ attempted murder)

  Paule A Kane

  (Escape from Custody)

  In addition, orders for return are outstanding against:

  Person

  Offence

  Robert Joseph Campbell

  (Murder/Attempted Murder)

  Paul Patrick Magee

  (Murder/Attempted Murder)

  However, these orders cannot be executed until the individuals concerned are located.
  606
  visits made in the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (b) the number of visits made to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (c) the number of nights spent over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have not, nor has any of my ministerial colleagues, made any such visit.

  Extradition
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has been given a definite time scale for the implementation of changes in the Republic of Ireland's Extradition Act 1987.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Irish Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act 1987, rather than to the Extradition (Amendment) Act of the same year. The Irish Government have assured us that they will introduce amending legislation as soon as possible and that this is being dealt with as a matter of high priority.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications to extradite for terrorist offences have been made to the Irish Republic since 15 November 1985; how many of these have been unsuccessful; and if he will list the cases and the basis on which application was made.

  Dr Mawhinney
  Since 15 November 1985, there have been 32 applications to the Irish Republic for the extradition of persons to Northern Ireland who were suspected of, or had been convicted for, terrorist offences. Applications in relation to five individuals were refused by the Irish courts; in other cases, warrants were returned or withdrawn for a variety of reasons, including three cases where the person sought was subsequently arrested in the United Kingdom. There are also some outstanding cases where the person has not yet been arrested. The successful cases are:

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to put specific proposals to the Irish Republic relating to that country's declared intention to amend its Extradition Act 1987.
  607
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The precise terms of any new legislation to amend the Irish Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act 1987 are a matter for the Government and Parliament of the Republic of Ireland. The United Kingdom Government have already made clear to the Irish Government the nature of their concerns about Irish extradition law.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for extradition in relation to terrorist offences in Northern Ireland are presently awaiting decision by the Irish Republic's courts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will detail the assurances given to the Irish Republic by the United Kingdom Government in relation to changes in the United Kingdom extradition laws; and what agreement was reached on the issue with the Irish Republic Justice Minister at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on 19 November.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The detail of discussions in the Anglo-Irish Conference is confidential, but my right hon. Friend has indicated that the question of setting the existing agreement on speciality in statutory form is primarily a matter for the Home Secretary and would be considered if and when a suitable legislative vehicle arose.

  Horses and Ponies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Northern Ireland how many horses and ponies are shipped into Northern Ireland each year from England and Wales.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures given in the table are in respect of imports of horses and ponies from Great Britain; separate figures are not available for imports from England and Wales.

  Number

  January to December 1988

  1,125

  January to December 1989

  1,360

  January to December 1990

  1,870

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many horses and ponies are exported each year from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  The numbers of horses and ponies exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland in each of the years 1988 to 1990 were:

  Number

  January to December 1988

  790

  January to December 1989

  728

  January to December 1990

  834

PRIME MINISTER

  Referendums
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1979 on which Government policy on the desirability of a referendum has been expressed by the Prime Minister in an official capacity; and on which subjects in each case.
  608
  The Prime Minister
  In Parliament I have expressed Government policy on a referendum on the subject of European integration. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has commented in Parliament on a referendum in relation to: closed shop; rate increases; capital punishment; restoring a Parliament and Government at Stormont; all national disputes affecting 1,000-plus workers; the future and land reform for the Falkland islanders; devolution in Scotland; and the community charge.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what data information systems Her Majesty's Government have(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to the police national computer; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The development and installation of data information systems is the responsibility of Ministers in charge of individual Departments. Any linkage of data between information systems is subject to legislation or specific agreement between the Ministers concerned and to the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 November.

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

  Non-ministerial Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines govern the holding of office as chairman or vice-chairman of a non-ministerial public body and at the same time holding a similar role or office in any political party.

  The Prime Minister
  Members of public boards, including chairmen and vice-chairmen, should not serve as officers carrying out executive duties in any political party.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received in favour of an animal protection commission to co-ordinate Government policy in respect of animal welfare and enforcement of laws against cruelty to animals; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers have received a number of letters proposing the setting up of a small Government Department or commission with responsibility for all aspects of animal welfare.

  I am satisfied that the Government's responsibilities for matters affecting animals, which involves a number of different Government Departments, is effectively carried out and that the laws relating to the welfare and protection of animals are enforced satisfactorily.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish tables showing both the latest available results from the employment training leaver survey and those for a year before in each TEC area in England and Wales and each LEC area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who were(a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/training (per cent.)

  Bedfordshire TEC

  5

  11

  4

  2

  7

  —

  6

  Central and South Cambridgeshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  North Derbyshire TEC

  6

  14

  2

  12

  8

  —

  1

  South Derbyshire TEC

  8

  14

  3

  3

  4

  —

  1

  Leicestershire TEC

  6

  16

  3

  2

  7

  1

  2

  Lincolnshire TEC

  6

  13

  4

  7

  9

  —

  1

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  8

  17

  4

  6

  8

  —

  2

  Northamptonshire TEC

  7

  18

  7

  2

  10

  1

  2

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  7

  10

  3

  5

  5

  —

  3

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  6

  12

  3

  5

  8

  1

  2

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  8

  13

  4

  12

  12

  1

  1

  Suffolk TEC

  11

  14

  3

  4

  14

  1

  2

  Argyll, Bute, Arran and Cumbrae LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  Caithness and Sutherland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness LEC

  74

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Skye and Lochalsh LEC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Orkney LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Shetland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  Lochaber LEC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayr LEC

  7

  14

  2

  3

  7

  1

  2

  Borders LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  Central LEC

  15

  17

  2

  3

  3

  —

  3

  Dunbartonshire LEC

  10

  17

  2

  5

  5

  1

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway LEC

  10

  11

  2

  4

  7

  —

  4

  Fife LEC

  6

  16

  3

  2

  5

  —

  4

  Glasgow LEC

  8

  14

  3

  2

  4

  1

  3

  Grampian LEC

  20

  17

  3

  3

  11

  —

  3

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Bedfordshire TEC

  48

  9

  4

  4

  Central and South Cambridgeshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Derbyshire TEC

  42

  6

  5

  5

  South Derbyshire TEC

  50

  4

  9

  4

  Leicestershire TEC

  50

  6

  4

  4

  Lincolnshire TEC

  43

  8

  4

  5

  610
  business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is provided in the following tables. The outcomes are those for people trained in the areas now covered by the TEC/LEC network and do not necessarily relate to the provision of individual TECs/LECs. Figures are not provided for some areas because the information is not considered to be reliable. Absolute numbers are not available because not all trainees respond to the follow-up questionnaire.
  611

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  43

  4

  4

  4

  Northamptonshire TEC

  38

  8

  4

  3

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  52

  5

  5

  4

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  49

  5

  5

  4

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  33

  8

  2

  6

  Suffolk TEC

  38

  6

  2

  6

  Argyll, Bute, Arran and Cumbrae LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Caithness and Sutherland LEC

  n/a

  —

  —

  n/a

  Inverness LEC

  13

  1

  1

  4

  Skye and Lochalsh LEC

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  Orkney LEC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Shetland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Lochaber LEC

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  Ayr LEC

  55

  5

  3

  2

  Borders LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Central LEC

  47

  3

  5

  2

  Dunbartonshire LEC

  47

  6

  3

  4

  Dumfries and Galloway LEC

  50

  4

  4

  4

  Fife LEC

  50

  5

  5

  4

  Glasgow LEC

  56

  3

  5

  3

  Grampian LEC

  29

  5

  4

  5

  n/a = not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  Full lime job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  Lanark LEC

  7

  14

  3

  4

  5

  1

  3

  Lothian LEC

  7

  14

  4

  9

  4

  ..

  2

  Renfrew LEC

  12

  16

  2

  4

  5

  1

  2

  Tayside LEC

  12

  19

  2

  3

  10

  1

  3

  Moray LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  County Durham TEC

  8

  15

  2

  3

  7

  1

  l

  Northumberland TEC

  10

  12

  3

  8

  8

  ..

  l

  Teesside TEC

  10

  13

  3

  1

  6

  1

  1

  Tyneside TEC

  9

  13

  3

  4

  6

  1

  2

  Wearside TEC

  7

  16

  2

  2

  5

  1

  2

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  6

  14

  2

  2

  5

  1

  1

  Bradford TEC

  10

  13

  2

  7

  6

  1

  3

  Calderdale Kirklees TEC

  7

  12

  3

  4

  9

  ..

  1

  Humberside TEC

  9

  16

  3

  7

  9

  1

  2

  Leeds TEC

  8

  18

  4

  5

  8

  ..

  2

  Rotherham TEC

  6

  10

  2

  6

  5

  1

  1

  Sheffield TEC

  8

  11

  3

  13

  5

  1

  1

  Wakefield TEC

  6

  13

  2

  4

  6

  ..

  1

  North Yorkshire TEC

  7

  16

  2

  22

  9

  1

  3

  Bolton Bury TEC

  13

  16

  1

  10

  7

  ..

  2

  North Cheshire TEC

  7

  16

  3

  2

  9

  —

  2

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cumbria TEC

  7

  13

  3

  12

  10

  1

  2

  East Lancashire TEC

  8

  15

  3

  8

  7

  ..

  3

  West Lancashire TEC

  9

  17

  2

  15

  6

  1

  2

  Central Manchester TEC

  9

  17

  2

  7

  5

  1

  2

  Merseyside TEC

  6

  14

  4

  4

  7

  1

  2

  Oldham TEC

  5

  18

  3

  5

  6

  1

  1

  Rochdale TEC

  8

  14

  1

  9

  5

  1

  1

  St. Helens TEC

  8

  16

  2

  5

  5

  —

  4

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.
  612 613

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Lanark LEC

  53

  4

  4

  4

  Lothian LEC

  48

  4

  4

  5

  Renfrew LEC

  47

  5

  5

  3

  Tayside LEC

  40

  4

  3

  4

  Moray LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  County Durham TEC

  50

  6

  4

  3

  Northumberland TEC

  42

  7

  5

  5

  Teesside TEC

  53

  5

  5

  3

  Tyneside TEC

  49

  5

  5

  3

  Wearside TEC

  52

  4

  6

  3

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  57

  4

  5

  3

  Bradford TEC

  47

  4

  4

  3

  Calderdale and Kirklees TEC

  52

  6

  3

  3

  Humberside TEC

  41

  5

  4

  4

  Leeds TEC

  44

  6

  3

  4

  Rotherham TEC

  58

  5

  3

  3

  Sheffield TEC

  50

  3

  3

  4

  Wakefield TEC

  59

  6

  3

  4

  North Yorkshire TEC

  30

  5

  2

  4

  Bolton and Bury TEC

  38

  5

  5

  3

  North Cheshire TEC

  48

  8

  4

  4

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Cumbria TEC

  48

  8

  3

  4

  East Lancashire TEC

  43

  3

  6

  4

  West Lancashire TEC

  38

  5

  4

  3

  Central Manchester TEC

  43

  5

  5

  4

  Merseyside TEC

  54

  4

  4

  3

  Oldham TEC

  50

  4

  5

  3

  Rochdale TEC

  48

  5

  3

  4

  St. Helens TEC

  48

  3

  3

  5

  n/a = not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  Stockport High Peak TEC

  10

  17

  2

  4

  9

  1

  1

  Wigan TEC

  7

  15

  2

  7

  5

  —

  1

  Wirral Chester TEC

  5

  14

  3

  6

  11

  1

  2

  Birmingham TEC

  6

  13

  4

  2

  5

  1

  3

  Central England TEC

  7

  14

  4

  2

  10

  —

  2

  Coventry Warks TEC

  7

  15

  4

  2

  9

  1

  4

  Dudley TEC

  6

  10

  5

  2

  6

  —

  3

  Hereford Worcs TEC

  7

  19

  5

  6

  10

  1

  2

  Sandwell TEC

  6

  13

  4

  2

  5

  1

  2

  Shropshire TEC

  13

  19

  3

  3

  14

  1

  1

  Staffordshire TEC

  10

  15

  3

  3

  11

  1

  2

  Walsall TEC

  7

  14

  5

  1

  4

  —

  1

  Wolverhampton TEC

  6

  12

  3

  1

  7

  1

  4

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  8

  10

  3

  5

  4

  1

  1

  South Glamorgan TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gwent TEC

  8

  16

  2

  7

  6

  —

  2

  Powys TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  NE Wales TEC

  11

  18

  3

  7

  9

  —

  2

  NW Wales TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  W Wales TEC

  8

  12

  2

  9

  8

  —

  3

  Avon TEC

  8

  18

  3

  9

  11

  1

  2

  Devon Cornwall TEC

  8

  11

  4

  10

  7

  1

  2

  Dorset TEC

  7

  12

  4

  13

  11

  —

  2

  Gloucester TEC

  11

  18

  3

  13

  11

  —

  2

  Somerset TEC

  4

  11

  4

  22

  7

  1

  2

  Wiltshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Essex TEC

  7

  16

  2

  4

  12

  2

  Hampshire TEC

  9

  16

  4

  5

  12

  —

  3

  614 615

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/training (per cent.)

  Heart of England TEC

  6

  15

  3

  5

  19

  2

  3

  Hertfordshire TEC

  6

  16

  4

  1

  13

  1

  1

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Stockport High Peak TEC

  44

  6

  3

  4

  Wigan TEC

  50

  5

  5

  4

  Wirral Chester TEC

  44

  6

  4

  4

  Birmingham TEC

  55

  5

  4

  3

  Central England TEC

  50

  3

  4

  3

  Coventry Warks

  45

  5

  4

  4

  Dudley TEC

  56

  5

  3

  4

  Hereford and Worcester TEC

  37

  10

  1

  4

  Sandwell TEC

  56

  4

  4

  3

  Shropshire TEC

  30

  8

  2

  6

  Staffordshire TEC

  43

  8

  3

  4

  Walsall TEC

  54

  7

  4

  5

  Wolverhampton TEC

  52

  6

  5

  3

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  54

  5

  6

  4

  South Glamorgan TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gwent TEC

  45

  6

  4

  4

  Powys TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North East Wales TEC

  35

  7

  5

  4

  North West Wales TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Wales TEC

  43

  6

  5

  5

  Avon TEC

  36

  6

  3

  4

  Devon and Cornwall TEC

  44

  7

  4

  4

  Dorset TEC

  35

  7

  4

  6

  Gloucester TEC

  30

  4

  4

  4

  Somerset TEC

  37

  5

  3

  5

  Wiltshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Essex TEC

  41

  10

  3

  4

  Hampshire TEC

  37

  8

  2

  5

  Heart of England TEC

  33

  9

  1

  5

  Hertfordshire TEC

  39

  11

  4

  5

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/training (per cent.)

  Isle of Wight TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Kent TEC

  6

  13

  3

  7

  9

  —

  2

  Milton Keynes TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Surrey TEC

  10

  18

  3

  6

  18

  1

  2

  Sussex TEC

  6

  14

  4

  8

  12

  1

  2

  Thames Valley TEC

  5

  15

  4

  9

  10

  1

  2

  AZTEC TEC

  6

  8

  8

  3

  8

  —

  3

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey TEC

  4

  13

  3

  5

  7

  1

  3

  Brent, Harrow TEC

  5

  9

  3

  9

  6

  1

  4

  Islington, Hackney TEC

  3

  9

  2

  7

  4

  1

  2

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster TEC

  4

  15

  2

  7

  4

  1

  3

  London East TEC

  6

  12

  3

  3

  6

  1

  3

  South London TEC

  4

  14

  4

  4

  5

  1

  2

  616 617

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  West London TEC

  7

  18

  1

  7

  9

  —

  1

  South Thames TEC

  3

  6

  5

  6

  4

  1

  1

  Residential Training Centres

  5

  16

  5

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Great Britain1

  8

  14

  3

  6

  7

  1

  2

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey Respondents.

  1 Includes records not identified to a particular TEC/LEC.

  Employment training leavers: March 1990 to February 1991 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Isle of Wight TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Kent TEC

  43

  9

  5

  4

  Milton Keynes TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Surrey TEC

  24

  10

  3

  6

  Sussex TEC

  37

  7

  2

  5

  Thames Valley TEC

  36

  12

  2

  5

  Aztec TEC

  45

  7

  6

  4

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey TEC

  47

  9

  4

  4

  Brent, Harrow TEC

  44

  11

  3

  5

  Islington, Hackney TEC

  56

  3

  7

  5

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster TEC

  50

  7

  6

  3

  London East TEC

  51

  7

  7

  4

  South London TEC

  49

  8

  4

  5

  West London TEC

  36

  13

  4

  4

  South Thames TEC

  58

  4

  6

  5

  Residential Training Centres

  49

  7

  7

  8

  Great Britain1

  46

  6

  4

  4

  1 Includes records not identified to a particular TEC/lec

  n/a = not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full lime job: Work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: Other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  Bedfordshire TEC

  8

  15

  5

  4

  6

  1

  2

  Central and South Cambridgeshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  North Derbyshire TEC

  10

  16

  2

  11

  6

  —

  2

  South Derbyshire TEC

  11

  16

  3

  3

  5

  1

  1

  Leicestershire TEC

  11

  16

  5

  5

  8

  —

  1

  Lincolnshire TEC

  7

  15

  4

  9

  9

  —

  1

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  10

  21

  3

  5

  8

  —

  3

  Northamptonshire TEC

  9

  19

  6

  3

  10

  1

  2

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  9

  15

  3

  5

  5

  1

  3

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  8

  12

  4

  2

  7

  —

  1

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  5

  21

  3

  14

  12

  —

  1

  Suffolk TEC

  13

  20

  5

  4

  14

  —

  4

  Argyll, Bute, Arran and Cumbrae LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  Caithness and Sutherland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  618 619

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: Work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: Other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/training (per cent.)

  Skye and Lochalsh LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Orkney LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  Ross and Cromarty LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  Shetland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Lochaber LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  Ayr LEC

  7

  16

  3

  3

  5

  1

  2

  Borders LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Central LEC

  11

  18

  2

  3

  5

  1

  3

  Dunbartonshire LEC

  10

  20

  2

  2

  6

  —

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway LEC

  7

  12

  3

  2

  6

  —

  2

  Fife LEC

  6

  15

  5

  1

  5

  —

  3

  Glasgow LEC

  7

  15

  3

  3

  4

  —

  3

  Grampian LEC

  17

  16

  4

  6

  9

  1

  3

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  TEC Office

  Bedfordshire TEC

  44

  7

  6

  3

  Central and South Cambridgeshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Derbyshire TEC

  37

  4

  9

  4

  South Derbyshire TEC

  45

  6

  7

  3

  Leicestershire TEC

  41

  5

  5

  3

  Lincolnshire TEC

  40

  7

  3

  5

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  34

  6

  6

  6

  Northamptonshire TEC

  38

  6

  4

  4

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  45

  4

  6

  4

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  52

  4

  6

  4

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  30

  7

  2

  7

  Suffolk TEC

  28

  5

  2

  5

  Argyll, Bute, Arran and Cumbrae LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  Caithness and Sutherland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Inverness LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Orkney LEC

  —

  —

  17

  17

  Ross and Cromarty LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Shetland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Lochaber LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Ayr LEC

  52

  5

  4

  3

  Borders LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Central LEC

  45

  3

  6

  4

  Dunbartonshire LEC

  44

  6

  5

  3

  Dumfries and Galloway LEC

  57

  4

  4

  4

  Fife LEC

  50

  5

  7

  2

  Glasgow LEC

  52

  3

  6

  3

  Grampian LEC

  29

  6

  4

  6

  n/a = not available because of low number of responses.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  Lanark LEC

  7

  15

  4

  4

  5

  1

  2

  Lothian LEC

  7

  14

  4

  7

  4

  —

  2

  Renfrew LEC

  9

  17

  2

  6

  3

  1

  2

  Tayside LEC

  11

  18

  3

  6

  7

  —

  2

  620 621

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  Moray LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  County Durham TEC

  10

  17

  2

  2

  5

  1

  1

  Northumberland TEC

  20

  12

  2

  7

  8

  —

  2

  Teesside TEC

  10

  15

  4

  2

  7

  1

  1

  Tyneside TEC

  12

  16

  3

  5

  6

  1

  1

  Wearside TEC

  9

  18

  3

  2

  5

  1

  1

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  8

  15

  3

  2

  6

  1

  1

  Bradford TEC

  12

  18

  2

  5

  5

  1

  2

  Calderdale and Kirklees TEC

  8

  21

  2

  4

  8

  —

  2

  Humberside TEC

  10

  20

  3

  6

  9

  1

  2

  Leeds TEC

  11

  22

  2

  5

  6

  —

  2

  Rotherham TEC

  4

  14

  2

  3

  6

  1

  2

  Sheffield TEC

  8

  14

  2

  11

  6

  —

  1

  Wakefield TEC

  8

  17

  2

  3

  3

  —

  1

  North Yorkshire TEC

  10

  20

  3

  12

  11

  1

  2

  Bolton and Bury TEC

  13

  19

  3

  10

  6

  —

  2

  North Cheshire TEC

  9

  17

  2

  2

  9

  —

  1

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  8

  18

  3

  1

  11

  —

  3

  Cumbrian TEC

  8

  16

  4

  8

  11

  1

  2

  East Lancashire TEC

  8

  15

  3

  16

  6

  —

  2

  West Lancashire TEC

  13

  16

  2

  9

  6

  1

  1

  Central Manchester TEC

  10

  19

  2

  7

  5

  1

  2

  Merseyside TEC

  7

  15

  3

  5

  6

  1

  2

  Oldham TEC

  7

  20

  3

  4

  6

  —

  1

  Rochdale TEC

  9

  15

  1

  9

  5

  1

  2

  St. Helens TEC

  9

  18

  3

  3

  5

  —

  2

  n/a = Not avilable because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Lanark LEC

  50

  4

  5

  4

  Lothian LEC

  49

  4

  5

  4

  Renfrew LEC

  45

  6

  6

  3

  Tayside LEC

  42

  5

  4

  3

  Moray LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  County Durham TEC

  48

  5

  5

  4

  Northumberland TEC

  36

  6

  5

  4

  Teesside TEC

  49

  5

  6

  3

  Tyneside TEC

  44

  4

  4

  4

  Wearside TEC

  49

  4

  6

  3

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  52

  4

  5

  3

  Bradford TEC

  46

  3

  4

  3

  Calderdale-Kirklees TEC

  39

  6

  5

  4

  Humberside TEC

  37

  5

  4

  4

  Leeds TEC

  41

  4

  4

  3

  Rotherham TEC

  56

  4

  5

  5

  Sheffield TEC

  46

  4

  5

  3

  Wakefield TEC

  53

  4

  5

  5

  North Yorkshire TEC

  29

  5

  4

  4

  Bolton-Bury TEC

  34

  4

  5

  4

  North Cheshire TEC

  46

  4

  5

  5

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  43

  5

  4

  6

  Cumbria TEC

  35

  8

  4

  5

  East Lancashire TEC

  38

  4

  5

  3

  West Lancashire TEC

  40

  4

  5

  4

  Central Manchester TEC

  42

  4

  4

  4

  Merseyside TEC

  50

  4

  5

  3

  Oldham TEC

  48

  5

  4

  2

  Rochdale TEC

  44

  6

  5

  4

  St. Helens TEC

  48

  3

  7

  4

  622 623
  n/a =Not available because of low number of responses.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: Work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: Other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  Stockport High Peak TEC

  12

  20

  3

  4

  8

  —

  1

  Wigan TEC

  12

  17

  3

  7

  6

  —

  1

  Wirral Chester TEC

  8

  14

  2

  8

  9

  —

  2

  Birmingham TEC

  9

  16

  4

  3

  5

  1

  2

  Central England TEC

  11

  18

  3

  2

  10

  1

  1

  Coventry Warwickshire TEC

  8

  16

  4

  3

  8

  —

  2

  Dudley TEC

  8

  17

  4

  2

  7

  —

  3

  Hereford Worcestershire TEC

  9

  23

  5

  6

  8

  —

  2

  Sandwell TEC

  9

  15

  4

  3

  4

  1

  2

  Shropshire TEC

  12

  21

  3

  5

  10

  —

  1

  Staffordshire TEC

  11

  20

  3

  2

  10

  —

  1

  Walsall TEC

  8

  14

  5

  1

  5

  1

  3

  Wolverhampton TEC

  9

  15

  5

  1

  5

  1

  2

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  7

  16

  -3

  8

  5

  1

  1

  South Glamorgan TEC

  11

  20

  3

  4

  8

  1

  1

  Gwent TEC

  11

  19

  2

  5

  6

  —

  1

  Powys TEC

  11

  13

  4

  19

  12

  —

  —

  North East Wales TEC

  9

  17

  3

  12

  9

  —

  2

  North West Wales TEC

  7

  13

  3

  18

  7

  —

  1

  West Wales TEC

  10

  15

  2

  9

  8

  —

  2

  Avon TEC

  9

  21

  4

  9

  10

  —

  2

  Devon Cornwall TEC

  10

  14

  4

  9

  7

  —

  1

  Dorset TEC

  10

  16

  4

  12

  9

  —

  2

  Gloucester TEC

  12

  19

  4

  15

  9

  1

  1

  Somerset TEC

  9

  15

  6

  16

  5

  1

  2

  Wiltshire TEC

  11

  17

  7

  7

  6

  —

  1

  Essex TEC

  7

  19

  2

  6

  12

  —

  2

  Hampshire TEC

  10

  21

  3

  7

  10

  —

  1

  Heart of England TEC

  7

  23

  4

  5

  13

  1

  3

  Hertfordshire TEC

  6

  23

  3

  2

  14

  1

  1

  n/a = Not available because of low number of responses.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit per cent.

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Stockport, High Peak TEC

  40

  5

  4

  3

  Wigan TEC

  41

  6

  6

  3

  Wirral, Chester TEC

  40

  5

  5

  5

  Birmingham TEC

  50

  4

  4

  3

  Central England TEC

  45

  3

  3

  4

  Coventry, Warks TEC

  42

  5

  6

  5

  Dudley TEC

  49

  4

  4

  4

  Hereford, Worcs. TEC

  33

  7

  3

  3

  Sandwell TEC

  52

  4

  4

  3

  Shropshire TEC

  35

  5

  4

  4

  Staffordshire TEC

  37

  6

  5

  4

  Walsall TEC

  49

  5

  5

  4

  Wolverhampton TEC

  52

  4

  4

  3

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  49

  5

  5

  3

  South Glamorgan TEC

  41

  3

  4

  5

  Gwent TEC

  43

  6

  3

  4

  Powys TEC

  25

  8

  2

  5

  North East Wales TEC

  33

  7

  4

  5

  North West Wales TEC

  38

  7

  1

  5

  West Wales TEC

  39

  6

  5

  4

  Avon TEC

  31

  6

  4

  5

  Devon, Cornwall TEC

  40

  6

  5

  4

  Dorset TEC

  34

  7

  4

  4

  Gloucester TEC

  26

  4

  4

  5

  Somerset TEC

  32

  5

  4

  6

  Wiltshire TEC

  37

  5

  6

  4

  Essex TEC

  35

  8

  5

  4

  624 625

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit per cent.

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Hampshire TEC

  33

  8

  2

  5

  Heart of England TEC

  31

  7

  1

  7

  Hertfordshire TEC

  32

  11

  3

  6

  n/a = not available because of low number of responses.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Full time job: work experience provider (per cent.)

  Full time job: other employer (per cent.)

  Voluntary work (per cent.)

  Self employed (including EAS) (per cent.)

  Part time job (under 30 HPW) (per cent.)

  Other Government training programme (per cent.)

  Full time education/ training (per cent.)

  Isle of Wight TEC

  9

  15

  9

  3

  14

  —

  1

  Kent TEC

  7

  17

  4

  6

  9

  —

  2

  Milton Keynes TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Surrey TEC

  15

  21

  1

  6

  19

  1

  1

  Sussex TEC

  6

  20

  3

  8

  11

  1

  2

  Thames Valley TEC

  6

  18

  3

  11

  14

  —

  1

  Aztec TEC

  4

  17

  6

  5

  8

  —

  3

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey TEC

  6

  18

  2

  7

  8

  1

  3

  Brent, Harrow TEC

  7

  17

  2

  10

  5

  1

  3

  Islington, Hackney TEC

  7

  23

  3

  5

  5

  1

  4

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster TEC

  5

  17

  2

  7

  5

  1

  4

  London East TEC

  9

  16

  2

  3

  6

  ..

  2

  South London TEC

  7

  16

  4

  8

  8

  1

  3

  West London TEC

  6

  20

  3

  11

  7

  ..

  2

  South Thames TEC

  4

  12

  4

  4

  5

  1

  3

  Large contractors unit

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Great Britain1

  9

  17

  3

  6

  7

  1

  2

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.

  1Includes people not identified to a particular to a particular TEC/lec.

  Employment training leavers: July 1989 to June 1990 Activity 3 months after leaving

  Current activity 3 months after leaving

  TEC area

  Unemployed claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Unemployed not claiming benefit (per cent.)

  Jobclub (per cent.)

  Something else (per cent.)

  Isle of Wight TEC

  31

  12

  2

  4

  Kent TEC

  38

  8

  5

  5

  Milton Keynes TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Surrey TEC

  22

  7

  2

  6

  Sussex TEC

  32

  7

  3

  6

  Thames Valley TEC

  29

  12

  2

  5

  Aztec TEC

  42

  7

  4

  4

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey TEC

  41

  9

  3

  4

  Brent, Harrow TEC

  34

  12

  5

  6

  Islington, Hackney TEC

  37

  6

  7

  3

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster TEC

  42

  9

  5

  4

  London East TEC

  43

  7

  7

  4

  South London TEC

  37

  8

  5

  5

  West London TEC

  32

  11

  4

  4

  South Thames TEC

  51

  4

  6

  6

  Large Contractors Unit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Great Britain1

  43

  5

  5

  4

  n/a = not available because of low number of responses.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow-up Survey.

  1Includes people not identified to a particular TEC/lec.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish tables showing both the 626
  latest available results from the ET leavers survey and those for a year before for each TEC area in England and

  627
  Wales and each LEC area in Scotland broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who (a) had been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how many of the ET leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan.

  Employment Training Proportion of alt leavers between March 1990 to February 1991

  TEC area

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification! credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Bedfordshire TEC

  44

  23

  18

  3

  45

  Central and South Cambridgeshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Derbyshire TEC

  37

  22

  12

  2

  38

  South Derbyshire TEC

  41

  21

  14

  6

  47

  Leicestershire TEC

  36

  15

  18

  4

  31

  Lincolnshire TEC

  39

  23

  13

  3

  43

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  51

  30

  17

  4

  42

  Northamptonshire TEC

  57

  39

  11

  8

  49

  GTR Nottingham TEC

  40

  20

  14

  6

  45

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  40

  23

  14

  4

  41

  GTR Peterborough TEC

  40

  24

  12

  4

  52

  Suffolk TEC

  57

  43

  12

  2

  47

  Argyll, Bute, Arran and Cumbrae LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Caithness and Sutherland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Inverness LEC

  48

  38

  6

  4

  78

  Orkney LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  Ross and Cromarty LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Shetland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Lochaber LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  n/a

  Ayr LEC

  45

  28

  12

  6

  42

  Borders LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Central LEC

  37

  21

  10

  6

  43

  Dunbartonshire LEC

  41

  24

  11

  6

  35

  Dumfries and Galloway LEC

  35

  27

  7

  1

  52

  Fife LEC

  49

  37

  6

  6

  62

  Glasgow LEC

  40

  25

  11

  4

  41

  Grampian LEC

  49

  34

  5

  10

  63

  Lanark LEC

  43

  31

  8

  5

  46

  Lothian LEC

  42

  28

  7

  7

  49

  Renfrew LEC

  42

  28

  9

  6

  38

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment Training Proportion of all leavers between March 1990 to February 1991

  TEC area

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification! credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Tayside LEC

  41

  31

  6

  4

  54

  Moray LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  County Durham TEC

  47

  30

  13

  4

  49

  Northumberland TEC

  46

  28

  13

  5

  51

  Teesside TEC

  46

  28

  15

  3

  49

  Tyneside TEC

  48

  30

  13

  4

  51

  Wearside TEC

  47

  31

  12

  4

  52

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  44

  25

  17

  2

  33

  Bradford TEC

  42

  27

  12

  3

  48

  Calderdale Kirklees TEC

  39

  22

  15

  3

  38

  Humberside TEC

  40

  22

  14

  4

  44

  Leeds TEC

  50

  31

  16

  3

  43

  Rotherham TEC

  42

  25

  15

  3

  45

  Sheffield TEC

  43

  22

  15

  5

  49

  Wakefield TEC

  37

  18

  16

  3

  33

  North Yorkshire TEC

  37

  25

  9

  3

  54

  Bolton Bury TEC

  27

  12

  11

  4

  47

  North Cheshire TEC

  40

  20

  15

  5

  36

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  34

  21

  9

  4

  n/a

  Cumbria TEC

  37

  20

  12

  5

  46

  East Lancashire TEC

  29

  17

  10

  2

  44

  West Lancashire TEC

  36

  20

  12

  3

  39

  628
  Mr. Jackson
  The information requested is provided in the following tables. The results are those people trained in the areas now covered by the TEC/LEC network and do not necessarily relate to the provision of individual TECs/LECs. Figures are not provided for some areas because the information is not considered to be reliable. Absolute numbers are not available because not all trainees respond to the follow-up questionnaire.
  629

  TEC area

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Central Manchester TEC

  41

  21

  14

  5

  50

  Merseyside TEC

  49

  27

  18

  4

  43

  Oldham TEC

  31

  16

  13

  3

  35

  Rochdale TEC

  20

  10

  7

  4

  41

  St. Helens TEC

  44

  22

  19

  3

  40

  Stockport High Peak TEC

  44

  27

  12

  5

  46

  Wigan TEC

  39

  23

  12

  4

  47

  Wirral Chester TEC

  48

  27

  16

  4

  46

  Birmingham TEC

  41

  21

  16

  4

  39

  Central England TEC

  55

  42

  9

  4

  61

  n/a = not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment Training Proportion of all leavers between March 1990 to February 1991

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Coventry, Warks TEC

  46

  29

  13

  4

  49

  Dudley TEC

  44

  27

  13

  4

  53

  Hereford, Worcs. TEC

  41

  25

  12

  4

  42

  Sandwell TEC

  34

  17

  14

  4

  36

  Shropshire TEC

  49

  30

  13

  6

  42

  Staffordshire TEC

  47

  31

  13

  4

  49

  Walsall TEC

  34

  19

  12

  4

  44

  Wolverhampton TEC

  37

  17

  17

  3

  36

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  46

  33

  10

  3

  67

  South Glamorgan TEC

  51

  39

  11

  3

  58

  Gwent TEC

  49

  31

  12

  5

  50

  Powys TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North East Wales

  43

  30

  9

  5

  57

  North West Wales TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  West Wales TEC

  46

  30

  12

  4

  53

  Avon TEC

  57

  40

  12

  5

  55

  Devon, Cornwall TEC

  44

  25

  14

  5

  45

  Dorset TEC

  47

  29

  14

  4

  54

  Gloucester TEC

  41

  27

  9

  6

  59

  Somerset TEC

  28

  18

  8

  2

  57

  Wiltshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Essex TEC

  49

  31

  13

  4

  48

  Hampshire TEC

  38

  23

  12

  3

  49

  Heart of England TEC

  50

  32

  10

  8

  54

  Hertfordshire TEC

  36

  26

  5

  5

  47

  Isle of Wight TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Kent TEC

  54

  39

  10

  4

  56

  Milton Keynes TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Surrey TEC

  49

  38

  8

  4

  63

  Sussex TEC

  45

  31

  12

  3

  54

  Thames Valley TEC

  30

  19

  8

  2

  56

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: Employment Training National Follow up Survey.

  Employment Training Proportion of all leavers between March 1990 to February 1991

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Aztec TEC

  44

  27

  8

  8

  58

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey TEC

  36

  22

  11

  3

  51

  Brent, Harrow TEC

  27

  13

  10

  4

  48

  Islington, Hackney TEC

  31

  15

  12

  4

  43

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster TEC

  29

  18

  9

  3

  51

  London East TEC

  38

  22

  13

  3

  49

  South London TEC

  34

  16

  15

  3

  34

  West London TEC

  39

  21

  12

  6

  52

  South Thames TEC

  48

  30

  14

  4

  54

  Residential training centres

  68

  55

  11

  2

  72

  630 631

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Great Britain1

  44

  27

  12

  4

  48

  1 Includes records not identified to a particular TEC/lec.

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: ET National Follow Up Survey.

  Employment Training Proportion of all leavers between July 1989 to June 1990

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Bedfordshire TEC

  36

  18

  14

  4

  45

  Central and South Cambridgeshire TEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Derbyshire TEC

  33

  18

  10

  4

  46

  South Derbyshire TEC

  32

  19

  10

  4

  43

  Leicestershire TEC

  35

  20

  11

  4

  44

  Lincolnshire TEC

  40

  23

  12

  4

  44

  Norfolk and Waveney TEC

  51

  31

  16

  4

  44

  Northamptonshire TEC

  46

  27

  12

  8

  45

  Greater Nottingham TEC

  34

  18

  12

  4

  42

  North Nottinghamshire TEC

  36

  19

  13

  4

  39

  Greater Peterborough TEC

  51

  16

  10

  5

  53

  Suffolk TEC

  52

  34

  15

  3

  41

  Argyll, Bute. Arran and Cumbrae LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Caithness and Sutherland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Inverness LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Orkney LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ross and Cromarty LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Shetland LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Lochaber LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ayr LEC

  39

  24

  9

  6

  44

  Borders LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Central LEC

  24

  11

  8

  5

  31

  Dunbartonshire LEC

  35

  18

  12

  5

  27

  Dumfries and Galloway LEC

  29

  20

  5

  4

  47

  Fife LEC

  42

  30

  7

  6

  45

  Glasgow LEC

  40

  24

  11

  5

  41

  Grampian LEC

  35

  24

  5

  7

  57

  Lanark LEC

  37

  24

  7

  6

  42

  Lothian LEC

  37

  24

  8

  5

  43

  Renfrew LEC

  39

  25

  8

  6

  45

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: ET National Follow up Survey.

  Employment Training Proportion of all leavers between July 1989 to June 1990

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  A waiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Tayside LEC

  33

  22

  6

  3

  50

  Moray LEC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  County Durham TEC

  38

  23

  11

  4

  48

  Northumberland TEC

  44

  23

  14

  7

  46

  Teesside TEC

  43

  25

  14

  4

  49

  Tyneside TEC

  43

  25

  12

  5

  47

  Wearside TEC

  40

  25

  12

  3

  49

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC

  43

  26

  14

  3

  41

  Bradford TEC

  38

  21

  13

  4

  44

  Calderdale Kirk lees TEC

  41

  20

  16

  5

  39

  Humberside TEC

  37

  18

  14

  4

  43

  Leeds TEC

  40

  21

  16

  3

  38

  Rotherham TEC

  35

  19

  13

  3

  41

  Sheffield TEC

  36

  20

  13

  3

  49

  Wakefield TEC

  27

  11

  12

  3

  33

  North Yorkshire TEC

  36

  22

  11

  3

  43

  Bolton Bury TEC

  21

  7

  11

  2

  44

  North Cheshire TEC

  34

  16

  13

  5

  39

  South and East Cheshire TEC

  25

  13

  8

  4

  35

  632 633

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Cumbria TEC

  36

  19

  13

  4

  41

  East Lancashire TEC

  21

  11

  8

  2

  44

  West Lancashire TEC

  33

  21

  10

  3

  43

  Central Manchester TEC

  35

  17

  14

  5

  46

  Merseyside TEC

  44

  25

  15

  4

  46

  Oldham TEC

  30

  15

  11

  4

  35

  Rochdale TEC

  19

  11

  6

  3

  38

  St. Helens TEC

  35

  22

  11

  2

  51

  Stockport High Peak TEC

  34

  20

  10

  4

  43

  Wigan TEC

  39

  23

  11

  5

  50

  Wirral Chester TEC

  42

  23

  14

  5

  48

  Birmingham TEC

  36

  20

  12

  4

  42

  Central England TEC

  43

  28

  11

  4

  45

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: ET National Follow up Survey.

  Employment Training Proportion of all leavers between July 1989 to June 1990

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  A waiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Coventry, Warks TEC

  42

  24

  13

  5

  48

  Dudley TEC

  40

  20

  14

  5

  48

  Hereford, Worcs. TEC

  27

  14

  9

  4

  42

  Sandwell TEC

  35

  16

  15

  4

  41

  Shropshire TEC

  42

  25

  10

  7

  46

  Staffordshire TEC

  40

  24

  11

  4

  46

  Walsall TEC

  26

  11

  11

  4

  42

  Wolverhampton TEC

  34

  17

  13

  3

  43

  Mid Glamorgan TEC

  34

  17

  14

  4

  46

  South Glamorgan TEC

  46

  26

  17

  3

  41

  Gwent TEC

  46

  28

  13

  6

  42

  Powys TEC

  31

  17

  9

  5

  54

  North East Wales TEC

  36

  19

  11

  5

  49

  North West Wales TEC

  39

  29

  8

  3

  53

  West Wales TEC

  41

  24

  12

  4

  48

  Avon TEC

  48

  31

  12

  5

  48

  Devon, Cornwall TEC

  41

  23

  13

  5

  46

  Dorset TEC

  45

  23

  14

  8

  52

  Gloucester TEC

  37

  20

  11

  4

  60

  Somerset TEC

  32

  18

  12

  3

  50

  Wiltshire TEC

  34

  19

  9

  6

  50

  Essex TEC

  43

  26

  13

  5

  45

  Hampshire TEC

  34

  20

  11

  4

  47

  Heart of England TEC

  44

  26

  14

  4

  44

  Hertfordshire TEC

  38

  26

  8

  5

  43

  Isle of Wight TEC

  62

  43

  9

  6

  56

  Kent TEC

  44

  31

  8

  5

  52

  Milton Keynes TEC

  45

  24

  16

  5

  39

  Surrey TEC

  49

  32

  11

  7

  57

  Sussex TEC

  38

  21

  13

  3

  44

  Thames Valley TEC

  31

  19

  9

  2

  61

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: ET National Follow Up Survey.

  Employment Training Proportion of all leavers between July 1989 to June 1990

  Worked for qualification! credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Aztec TEC

  32

  20

  9

  4

  47

  Barnet, Enfield and Hackney TEC

  33

  18

  12

  4

  47

  Brent, Harrow TEC

  37

  21

  11

  6

  57

  Islington, Hackney TEC

  26

  12

  10

  3

  49

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster TEC

  35

  20

  12

  3

  49

  London East TEC

  34

  14

  16

  4

  46

  South London TEC

  32

  18

  10

  4

  49

  West London TEC

  42

  24

  10

  8

  53

  South Thames TEC

  37

  22

  11

  4

  43

  634 635

  Worked for qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Gained qualification or credit (per cent.)

  Not gained qualification/ credit (per cent.)

  Awaiting results (per cent.)

  Completed agreed training (per cent.)

  Great Britain1

  39

  22

  12

  4

  44

  1 Includes records not identified to a particular TEC/lec,

  n/a = Not available because of low number of respondents.

  Source: ET National Follow Up Survey.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list those EC directives not yet adopted which have a major impact on employment terms and conditions; what assessment he has made of each; and if he will give details of the progress of each towards adoption.

  Mr. Forth
  Under the European Commission's social action programme the following directives directly concerned with terms and conditions of employment have been published but not yet adopted by the Council:

  — Protection of Pregnant Women at Work Directive: the Social Affairs Council reached a political agreement on the text on 6 November 1991, with only Italy disagreeing with the substance of the proposal. The Council rejected the costly and damaging proposals for harmonising maternity pay and conditions put forward by the Commission. The Council's formal common position is due to be adopted at the Council on 3 December.

  — Directive on the Posting of Workers (Subcontracted Workers): the Government will take a view on this directive following the results of a consultative exercise. The test which the Government will apply to the proposals will he whether they help or hinder free movement of labour and competition in the Community. The directive has not yet been discussed by the Council.

  — Atypical Work Directives: these two directives were last discussed by the Council on 18 December 1990. The majority of member states indicated that they had grave difficulties with the proposals and could not support them. These directives would raise employment costs and thereby reduce employment opportunities to part-time workers. The estimated cost to the United Kingdom would be £1 billion. In addition the directives would affect the pay of 1·75 million workers by forcing them to make national insurance contributions for the first time.

  — Working Time Directive: this directive will be discussed by the Council for the first time on 3 December. It continues to cause difficulties for many member states. Responses to the Government's consultation exercise made it clear that this proposal would be extremely damaging to the United Kingdom. It would impose on employers crippling annual costs of £5 billion under present conditions.

  Woollen Textile Industry
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the notifications of redundancies which he has received, to the most recent practicable date, for 1991 in the west Yorkshire woollen textile industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Information regarding individual firms given to the Department under the redundancy handling provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1975 is given in confidence.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what procedures are followed in order to monitor the implementation of his guarantee of an entitlement to a youth training place for those school leavers seeking a YT place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Regional directors of the Employment Department maintain close contact with training and enterprise councils (TECs) to ensure that the business plan is fulfilled and the YT guarantee is met. They undertake detailed reviews either periodically or as need arises.

SCOTLAND

  Specialist Education
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what inquiries he is conducting into the quantity and quality of specialist education for speech and language-disordered children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  HM inspectorate of schools is currently examining the provision being made by education authorities for children with language and communication disorders, with the intention of describing and disseminating best practice and making recommendations about effective provision for children with these disorders.

  I have also commissioned research by Stirling university into current policies and practices of education authorities for children with specific learning difficulties in Scotland and into the provision that is made for these children. This study will embrace children exhibiting dyslexia.

  These projects are directed towards establishing the quality and quantity of educational provision made for children with speech and language disorders and with other special needs.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total operations figure for table 4.4. in "Scottish Health Statistics" updated for 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of operations performed for the year to 31 December 1990 was 517,534.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total national health service cost and hospital and community health services capital cost figures for table 10.1. in "Scottish Health Statistics" updated for 1990–91.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is given in the table:
  637

  Cost in Scotland Total net National Health Service and hospital and community health services capital

  1990–91 £000s

  Total National Health Service (net)

  2,982,854

  Hospital and community health services capital

  156,241

  Category A Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of category A prisoners in prisons in Scotland on the 1 November.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Fifteen.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the number of young persons under 19 years of age in Scotland who are currently serving sentences, either at Her Majesty's pleasure or without limit of time; and if he will give details of the numbers and ages of those serving mandatory sentences and those serving discretionary sentences and the crimes for which they have received their sentences.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total number is six. All were sentenced to be detained without limit of time. The details requested are as follows:

  Mandatory sentence (section 205 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975)

  Age

  Number

  Offence

  15

  1

  Murder

  16

  1

  Murder

  17

  1

  Murder

  18

  2

  Murder

  TOTAL

  5

  Discretionary sentence (section 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975)

  Age

  Number

  Offence

  Culpable

  12

  1

  homicide

  Horses and Ponies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many horses and ponies are shipped each year from Scotland to(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of 1,857 horses and ponies were shipped from Scotland to Northern Ireland in 1990. No livestock is shipped direct from Scotland to the Republic of Ireland.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are awaiting an organ transplant; and if he will give the figure for 1990; and how long on average a patient must wait for a transplant of a kidney, heart and lungs, heart, lungs, liver and cornea.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 November 1991]: The information requested is not held by my
  638
  Department. A transplant register is compiled by the United Kingdom transplant support service authority which is based in Bristol. However the register is not held in a form which would enable the information requested to be collated readily.

  Schools Inspectorate
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to reorganise Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 November 1991]: A number of changes to the organisation and operational procedures of Her Majesty's inspectorate will be made to meet the commitments of the parents charter and to take account of emerging developments in education, for example, in quality assurance at school and education authority level.

  An audit unit will be established as a separate, identifiable division of Her Majesty's inspectorate. A principal function of the unit will be to collect, analyse and publish evidence about how well schools and education authorities are performing.

  Inspection procedures are being reviewed and revised:

  —to take account of the development of written educational plans and targets in schools, including reviews of progress against these;

  —to introduce assessment of the efficacy of quality assurance arrangements in place in schools and education authorities;

  —to allow targeting of inspections on the basis of evidence from the audit unit and other sources;

  —to ensure that parents, through school boards, are adequately consulted in the course of inspections and that they receive clear summary inspection reports showing the strengths and weaknesses identified.

  Inspection guidelines are also being reviewed to incorporate performance indicators which will shortly be published.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the work force and those seeking work are involved in youth training and employment training schemes.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 27 November 1991]: The latest estimate of the total number on youth training and employment training in Scotland, as a percentage of the civilian work force and those seeking work, is 2·3 per cent.

DEFENCE

  Solvent-based Paints
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department is taking to bring specifications for new equipment into line with the Department of the Environment's policy of substituting other finishes for solvent-based paints.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is issuing guidance on air pollution standards for coating processes which will be subject to pollution control under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. One of the options considered by the guidance will be to change to
  639
  low-solvent coatings. My Department is investigating alternatives to solvent-based paints in its own particular circumstances.

  Forces' Pensions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to eliminate the effects of pension troughs in Her Majesty's forces services retired pay caused by pay restraint in the public sector in 1975–76; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The retired pay or pensions awarded to personnel of the armed forces whose service ended during the period of pay restraint from 1976 to 1978 were calculated in accordance with the rules of the armed forces pension scheme in force at that time. The Ministry of Defence has no plans to modify the awards that were made.

  Oil and Gas (Clyde)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations his Department has made on the development of oil and gas resources in the Firth of Clyde;

  (2) which areas, in and around the Firth of Clyde, have been ruled out of bounds to oil and gas exploration on account of military requirements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence is consulted by the Department of Energy about proposals for licensing oil and gas development and production but no such proposals relating to the Firth of Clyde have been received since 1985. On that occasion, my Department was content for exploration to proceed in a block to the south-west of Arran subject to a number of restrictions including that no activity should take place within an area bounded by the following co-ordinates:

  55 20 N 5 28 W

  55 25 N 5 28 W

  55 25 N 5 22 W

  55 20 N 5 22 W

  In considering any further proposals my Department and the Department of Energy would seek to agree arrangements which would allow oil and gas activity to take place while safeguarding Ministry of Defence interests.

  Services (Redundancies)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many job losses and redundancies are planned in each of the armed services in each year to 1994 following "Options for Change"; how many applications for voluntary redundancy he has received from service personnel wanting to leave in the first phase of redundancies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  By 1995 we expect reductions of some 8,000 in the Royal Navy, 40,000 in the Army and 12,000 in the Royal Air Force. Details were given in the answer I gave the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 21 November at columns 305–06.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific provision he is making to assist those members of Her Majesty's forces who will be made redundant as a result of "Options for Change" to find future employment; and if he will make a statement.
  640
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Resettlement services provided to assist service personnel to prepare for civilian life, including finding civilian employment, will be available to all those being made redundant. In addition to individual advice and counselling, these services include briefings on job finding and on a wide range of specific second careers; opportunities to undertake short familiarisation attach-ments with civilian organisations; 28 days pre-release vocational training in any of a large number of skills and disciplines which are useful in the civilian labour market; and assistance with job placement from our own employment unit, as well as from the Officers Association and the Regular Forces Employment Association, both of which receive financial support from the Ministry of Defence. We are making the necessary financial provision to cover the increase in demand for these services. Those leaving the regular forces also have access to Department of Employment services and facilities, including access to some programmes without the standard qualifying period of unemployment.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial advice and assistance he is giving to those members of Her Majesty's forces who will lose their jobs and receive redundancy payments as a consequence of "Options for Change"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The resettlement package includes the opportunity to attend one-day briefings specifically on financial aspects. These cover pay, pensions, insurance, investments and housing. Some additional briefings are being arranged to help meet the increased demand expected to arise from those being made redundant. In addition, in the Army further financial aspects briefings will be provided worldwide on a road-show basis, starting in March 1992. These will be specifically geared to the needs of those being made redundant, and all such personnel will be actively encouraged to attend.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much in cash and constant prices has been spent on the resettlement service in each year since 1987–88 in each of the armed forces; and how much is projected to be spent in the period up to 1994.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Human Rights
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his oral answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 126, if he will make it his policy to take into account the human rights records of Governments when deciding to whom his Ministry will sell surplus aircraft.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  This has always been our policy.

  Overseas Forces (Gifts)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his policy towards gifts sent by members of the public to British forces while engaged in service overseas;

  (2) how many sales there have been to civilians in the Falklands of the contents of gift parcels sent to British forces in the Gulf during Operation Granby; who took the decision to make such sales; what were the proceeds of such sales; and how were the proceeds applied.
  641
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The BFPO 3000 appeal produced a most generous response from the public. I announced the winding-up of the appeal on 28 March 1991 at columns 571–72, indicating that some residual items would be sent to service personnel in overseas locations other than the Gulf. Items were sent to the Falkland islands and were distributed to service personnel in the garrison. Some surplus remained. Rather than return or destroy them, the Department decided to sell them locally, raising over £2,000 for the Gulf trust.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many gift parcels were sent by members of the public to British forces serving in the Gulf during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is estimated that up to 190,000 parcels were sent in response to the BFPO 3000 appeal.

  Trident
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the deployment of the United Kingdom's Trident nuclear missile with the same number of warheads as the present Polaris missiles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Trident must be able to overcome defences that did not exist when Polaris entered service, and remain a credible deterrent well into the next century.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how much money would be saved on the contract on the fourth Trident submarine if it were cancelled on(a) 22 January 1992, (b) 22 February 1992, (c) 22 March 1992, (d) 22 April 1992, (e) 22 May 1992 or (f) 22 june 1992;

  (2) how much money to date has been spent on the fourth Trident submarine; and how much will have been spent by (a) 22 January 1992, (b) 22 February 1992, (c) 22 March 1992, (d) 22 April 1992, (e) 22 May 1992, (f) 22 June 1992.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Expenditure to date on the fourth submarine is approximately £142 million. Future levels of expenditure are subject to considerations of commercial confidentiality. The level of savings which would be achieved if the contract were to be cancelled on any of the dates specified by the hon. Member would not differ significantly from the broad estimate of £400 million given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 22 November 1991 at column 600.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce a contract for the production of a fourth Trident submarine.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The order will be announced when negotiations with the contractor have been successfully concluded.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total estimated cost of the fourth Trident submarine.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The cost of the fourth Vanguard class submarine will not be known until negotiations with the contractor have been successfully concluded. It would not be appropriate to publish an estimated cost while those negotiations are in progress.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is being made in the testing programme for 642
  Trident nuclear weapons to ensure that accidental detonation cannot take place to weapons in transit, storage or deployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The safety of our nuclear weapons is paramount. Both the Trident missile and its warhead will undergo a comprehensive series of trials, assessments and formal safety approval procedures before entering service with the Royal Navy.

  Polaris
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for the effectiveness of the Polaris nuclear deterrent of the recently upgraded Soviet anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The programme of improvements to the Soviet anit-ballistic missile system reinforces the need for Polaris to be replaced by Trident in the mid–1990s, to ensure that the British strategic nuclear deterrent remains credible well into the next century.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer,Official Report, 13 November, column 614, what are the implications of the negotiated deployment of strategic defences for the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  President Bush made it clear in his statement of 27 September that he is seeking the limited deployment of non-nuclear defences to protect against limited ballistic missile strikes without undermining the credibility of existing deterrent forces.

  Missiles
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's assessment as to when the United States SLAT missile will come into operational service;

  (2) what is his Department's assessment as to when the French ASLP missile will come into operational service.

  Mr. Archie Hamiliton
  This is a matter for the Governments concerned.

  Warminster Infantry School
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to move the school of infantry from Warminster to Brecon; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The aim of restructuring the Army's training base is to make optimum use of existing sites by concentrating training at a smaller number of larger establishments. The locations for initial training in the Army remain under study and no final decisions have yet been taken.

  Defence Programmes
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total estimated cost of(a) the GWS 26 MOD 1 Sea Wolf vertical launch missiles ship system, (b) the GWS MOD 2 lightweight Sea Wolf ship system, (c) the

  643
  Spearfish torpedo programme, (d) the TRIGAT medium-range missile programme, (e) the Rapier field standard C programme and (f) the EH101 helicopter programme.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Estimated total procurement costs, at 1990–91 average outturn prices, and not including in-service support costs, are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) GWS 26 Vertical Launch Sea Wolf missile system

  1,160

  (b) Spearfish torpedo

  1,300

  (c) TRIGAT Medium Range missile

  920

  (d) Rapier Field Standard C

  1,700

  (e) EH 101 ASW Helicopter

  3,200

  There are no present plans to procure lightweight Sea Wolf.

  Infantry Regiment, Crickhowell
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for stationing an infantry regiment permanently at Cwrt Y Gollen camp, Crickhowell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are examining a number of options for the future accommodation of United Kingdom-based troops. Some accommodation will be required for units returning from abroad, but detailed decisions have yet to be made.

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the policy of the British Government on the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO's new strategic concept confirms the need to maintain an appropriate mix of conventional and nuclear forces for the forseeable future. For as long as we need to retain nuclear weapons to deter war, we will need to conduct nuclear tests to ensure that our weapons are safe, reliable and up-to-date.

  A comprehensive test ban treaty therefore remains a long-term goal. Progress towards it can be made only by a step-by-step approach, taking account of developments elsewhere, especially in arms control. Any treaty in this field will have to address the enormous verification problems. We are therefore taking a leading role in the conference on disarmament in Geneva, which is considering a verification regime covering nuclear tests.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE have been confirmed in each calendar year from 1987 and to date for the current year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The number of confirmed cases in Great Britain, by the date of onset of clinical signs of the disease, is as follows:

  Year

  Number of confirmed cases

  1987

  460

  1988

  3,038

  1989

  7,614

  644

  Year

  Number of confirmed cases

  1990

  14,332

  11991

  15,698

  1 Up to 15 November.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases in total of BSE have been confirmed to date in(a) Dyfed, (b) Wales and (c) Great Britain.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  Number of confirmed cases1

  Dyfed

  1,834

  Wales

  3,290

  Great Britain

  41,142

  1 To 15 November 1991.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's latest assessment as to when the incidence of BSE will reach its peak and by what date it will fade out.

  Mr. Maclean
  Because of the long incubation period of BSE it is impossible to predict accurately when we will see a decline in cases appearing. Nevertheless it is now over three years since the most likely source of infection was cut off by means of banning, from July 1988, the feeding of ruminant protein to cattle and other ruminants.

  The number of cases arising from infection prior to that date will continue to increase for some time. We would expect however to see a decline in the number of confirmed cases some time next year, provided that other routes of transmission do not play a significant part in the epidemiology of the disease.

  Badgers
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for licences under section 4 of the Badgers Act 1991 he has received; how many such applications he has approved; what procedures he has laid down for dealing with such applications; what criteria he uses in determining such applications; and if he will make a statement on the operation of the Act.

  Mr. Maclean
  As at 23 November, the Department had received 23 applications for licences under section 4 of the Badgers Act 1991, and one licence has been granted. The Government are currently considering the criteria to be laid down for the granting of licences by the agriculture departments. Until these criteria have been decided licences are being issued only where there is a serious risk to public safety or to animal health.

  Food Sabotage
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he plans to have with food manufacturers on the subject of food contamination or sabotage; and what measures he will take to combat this type of crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have already set up arrangements to ensure close contact with the food industry, other
  645
  interested Government Departments, enforcement auth-orities and the police when incidents of this type occur. Our chief concern is possible risks to the public, and I am confident that food manufacturers and retailers are aware of the need to have well-prepared plans for co-ordinated action to minimise these. Guidance on drawing up such plans has recently been issued by the relevant trade associations. The question of crime is a matter for the police.

  Beef
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of beef from intervention meat have been used in(a) schools and (b) hospitals in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Energy Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department was represented at the seminar on wind energy and agriculture held at the national agriculture centre on 20 November under the auspices of the energy technology support unit.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes.

  Lindane
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Advisory Committee on Pesticides' report on the use of lindane wood preservative will be published.

  Mr. Maclean
  Advice on lindane is expected from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in the first part of 1992; the evaluation document will then be published.

  "Our Farming Future"
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost of producing and distributing "Our Farming Future".

  Mr. Curry
  The cost of the design, production, printing, storage and distribution of "Our Farming Future" is estimated to have been £48,000.

  EC Meetings
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the EC Ministerial Council meetings at which his Department has or will be represented during November and December.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department was represented at the Agriculture Council meeting on 18 and 19 November, and will be represented at the Agriculture Council on 11 and 12 December and the Fisheries Council on 17 and 18 December. An additional meeting of the Agriculture Council may be convened in December, but no date has yet been fixed.

  EC (Visits)
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list for himself, and for each of the Ministers at his Department, details of(a) the
  646
  number of visits made in the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, (b) the number of visits made to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and (c) the number of nights spent over the past month away from the United Kingdom on official European Community business;

  (2) if he will list the number of visits made by officials in his Department during the past month to destinations outside the United Kingdom but within the European Community on official business related to the European Community, the number of visits made by officials in his Department to Brussels within the past month on official business related to the European Community and the number of nights spent by officials in his Department over the past month away from the United Kingdom official European Community business.

  Mr. Curry
  The total number of official visits from this Department to other EC countries on Community business in the month of October 1991 was 257, of which 214 were in Brussels. The total number of individual nights spent away at official expense to complete this business was 316. These figures include both Ministers and officials; I regret that they cannot be broken down further without incurring disproportionate expense.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of expenditure in 1990–91 and 1991–92 by the Intervention Board executive agency and the Ministry of Agriculture on market regulation under the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Gummer
  Details are given as follows of the outturn for 1990–91 and the latest forecast of outturn for 1991–92.

  £ million

  1990–91 actual outturn)

  1991–92 (forecast outturn)

  Price guarantees

  Potatoes

  —

  —

  Wool

  18·2

  34·9

  Assistance to the egg industry

  0·1

  —

  TOTAL

  18·3

  34·9

  Support for capital and other improvements

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme (EC)

  3·2

  6·3

  Agriculture Improvement Scheme (EC)

  13·3

  10·2

  Agriculture and Horticulture Development Scheme

  12·2

  7·7

  Farm Structures

  0·3

  0·3

  Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme

  —

  —

  Agriculture Improvement Scheme (National)

  0·9

  0·3

  Northern Ireland Agriculture Development Programme

  7·0

  8·3

  Farm Woodland Scheme

  1·0

  2·1

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme (National)

  32·1

  33·8

  Guidance Premiums

  0·1

  0·1

  Farm Accounts

  0·2

  0·3

  Other

  0·2

  0·4

  TOTAL

  70·5

  69·8

  Support for agriculture in special areas

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  130·4

  159·3

  647

  1990–91 (actual outturn)

  1991–92 (forecast outturn)

  Additional benefit under AHDS, NIADP, AHGS, AIS (EC), AIS (National), FCGS (EC) and FCGS (National)

  18·6

  19·8

  Others

  10·1

  11·3

  Total

  159·1

  190·4

  Other Payments

  Set-Aside Scheme

  19·1

  27·4

  Milk Outgoers Scheme

  0·8

  0·7

  Crofting Building Grants and Loans (net)

  3·3

  4·2

  Sheep Compensation Scheme 1986

  0·9

  1·0

  Storm Damage Recovery Scheme 1987

  0·4

  —

  Cooperation Grants

  0·9

  1·2

  Farm Diversification—

  Capital Grants

  2·8

  3·0

  Marketing and Feasibility Grants

  0·1

  0·4

  Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme

  0·3

  0·9

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  9·4

  11·6

  Extensification

  —

  0·4

  Other

  1·0

  1·2

  TOTAL

  39·0

  52·0

  GRAND TOTAL

  286·9

  347·1

  Some of this expenditure attracts contributions from the European Community. These are mainly received in the following year. In 1991–92, £81 million is expected to be received from the fund compared with £52 million in 1990–91.

  Horses and Ponies
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of welfare arrangements for horses and ponies shipped from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am riot aware of any particular problems associated with the welfare of horses and ponies shipped from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many horses and ponies are shipped each year to the Republic of Ireland from England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Figures for United Kingdom exports to the Republic of Ireland are given below. Separate totals for exports from England and Wales are not available.
  648

  1990

  Number

  Value £

  Horses and ponies

  3,238

  62,178,031

  Source: HM Customs and Excise

  Suckler Cows
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that British beef producers will benefit fully from the proposals of the Commission to make a further 20 ecu per head available to suckler cow producers in this marketing year.

  Mr. Curry
  The Council of Ministers has yet to take a decision on the Commission's proposal.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage farmers net returns have risen in the United Kingdom since 1980; what information he has on comparable returns in each of the other European Community countries; and if he swill make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The most recent assessment of aggregate total income from farming in the United Kingdom, in current prices, indicates an increase of around 55 per cent. between 1980 and 1990. When expressed in real terms and per annual work unit, this measure of income fell by a little over 5 per cent. between 1980 and 1990. This latter definition corresponds to an income indicator—"indicator 3"—published by Eurostat for the member states, changes in which are shown in the table. These include forecasts for 1990 made one year ago and are subject to revision.

  Real 1 net income from agricultural activity of family labour input per annual work unit (Indicator 3): percentage change between 1980 and 1990 (forecast)

  Percent

  Belgium

  +7·3

  Denmark2

  +242·7

  Germany

  +34·7

  Greece

  +27·2

  Spain

  +40·1

  France

  +29·3

  Ireland

  +62·9

  Italy

  -32·2

  Luxembourg

  +70·3

  Netherlands

  +82·5

  Portugal

  -5·9

  Source: Eurostat

  Notes:

  1 Figures have been expressed in real terms using the GDP deflator.

  2 Incomes in Denmark were particularly low in 1980.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
London Underground (Safety Measures) Act.

EC Decision-Making: Control
3.1 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there should be democratic control over decisions reached by the 12 European Community Governments on police co-operation, immigration and asylum; and, if so, whether, in their view, such control should be exercised by national parliaments, or the European Parliament, or both.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the governments of the Twelve are individually accountable to their respective national parliaments for any joint decisions which they take. Her Majesty's Government believe that democratic control over actions in these important areas should be primarily by national parliaments.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Does he agree with me, however, that it is not really enough to have important decisions on asylum, police co-operation and immigration merely cornmunicated to national parliaments or to the European Parliament in the form of an Answer to a Written Question'? Should they not be put before the parliaments before the decision is taken so that national parliaments or the European Parliament can make their views known and influence the decision?
Will my noble friend examine the procedure whereby at present information is merely provided to national parliaments? Will he see whether members of national parliaments or of the European Parliament may participate?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am quite prepared to examine the procedures. However, the fundamental point is that there are important individual aspects bearing upon subjects such as asylum policy, immigration policy and the combating of drug addiction within each country. We believe that it is right to co-operate with our European partners, but not right to extend the Community competence into those areas.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some disquiet about the way in which
1398
decisions are taken at Community level? As the Minister knows, there are two groups, the Schengen Group, of which Britain is not a member, and the Trevi Group, of which it is? I am sure that the Minister is aware that policy emerges from meetings of those groups.
Can the Minister go so far as to agree with me that in relation to these sensitive areas of national policy, at the moment it is almost impossible to discover precisely what the various countries in Europe are co-ordinating and co-operating about? As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said, it is not good enough for decisions merely to be announced at a late stage when no one has a chance to consider them in advance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the draft treaty identifies a range of interior and justice issues as being of common interest within the 12 member states. They include such matters as combating drug addiction, asylum policy and immigration policy, combating fraud and so on. The interior and justice ministers of the Twelve will remain accountable to their national parliaments for the work on decisions which are taken jointly in those areas. There will be co-operation between them but in the end it is the national parliaments who have the responsibility.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of a news item in yesterday's Daily Telegraph which reported that Chancellor Kohl is urging the formation of a joint European police force to operate after 1994? Would this mean, for example, that after that date the CRS may be flown over from France to deal with demonstrations and similar events in the United Kingdom?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord has allowed his imagination to run away with him. Europol is a proposal for a European police office which would encourage and facilitate the exchange of police and criminal information and experience. It would analyse such information for use by member states. Her Majesty's Government support it but we do not want Europol to have a supranational power of enforcement.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the operational control of police forces in this country is different from that of many of our European neighbours? The operational control of the various police forces scattered about the country by an international body would present considerable constitutional and practical difficulties.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend. The operational control of police forces in this country is different from that in other countries. Police forces in other countries differ from each other in their operational control. That is why we do not seek supranational control. We want full co-operation between the police forces of all the 12 members.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the distinction which he firmly draws

1399
between national competence and Community competence in this regard is a source of great comfort to many of us on all sides?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I always like to think that I am a source of great comfort to noble Lords on all sides.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would Europol be a branch of Interpol or a rival to it?
Earl Ferrers: Neither, my Lords. It would be different from it.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that over the decades Parliament has, by means of a whole series of enabling measures in this field, given power to the Executive to look to these matters itself? It would not be practical to come back to Parliament to remove those powers which it has already granted to the Executive.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, basically I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Question. Can the Minister say what plans the Government have, whether or not in co-operation with the rest of Europe, to separate the genuine asylum seeker from what one might call the economic immigrant? That is the great problem that faces us. All countries in Europe, or all the ones of which I know, have signed the 1951 Geneva convention on asylum, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to apply it. Genuine co-operation may enable steps to be taken which would identify genuine asylum seekers before they come to this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole matter of immigration in the Community is of great importance. It is necessary that we should work with our partners on border controls with a view to achieving a uniformly effective external frontier. The external frontiers convention is a step in this direction. There are other areas of immigration policy in which the harmonisation and exchange of information and experience will be valuable. We all face problems over immigration and asylum applications and we need to work together. The Dublin convention on the handling of multiple asylum applications is an example of the progress that is being made. The United Kingdom must retain control of its immigration and asylum policies. There is no question of conceding Community competence over that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister gave an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is no question of European police coming over here to deal with riots and other such matters. Will the Minister give a similar assurance that no undercover operations will be undertaken by Europol in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have tried to explain that Europol is a proposed European police office. It does not concern undercover agents working surreptitiously in other countries.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that where European policies differ from national policies, they differ from them and not to them?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think I understand the point the noble Lord is making. Is he making the point that I was grammatically incorrect? If that is the case, I bow to his superior intellectual intelligence.

British Industry: Relocations
3.11 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many United Kingdom firms have relocated to other European countries during the past 12 months; and what contribution this has made to unemployment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, detailed information is not kept in this way, but over the past five years inward investment into the United Kingdom from other EC countries has exceeded investment in the reverse direction by £4 billion.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Is he aware that the number of firms relocating to other European countries is increasing and that that could pose a grave danger to the economy of this country and prevent any recovery? Pilkington of Merseyside has said relocation occurs as firms do not wish to fall into a tax trap. Relocations have cost 700 Liverpudlians their jobs. It is said that many more jobs will be lost. Further, many students in our universities had the intention of serving British industry but those industries have relocated to Europe and those students who wished to help this country now find themselves on the dole. That is a distressing submission. Is the noble Viscount aware that the number of company liquidations is increasing? Relocation to Europe is increasing and the Government should seriously consider the implications of that.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can best reply to the point made by the noble Lord by quoting from a recent CBI report entitled Competing with the World's Best that states:
"investments overseas by UK companies should not be seen as weakening, but strengthening the UK's manufacturing base. If employment and investment prospects in the UK are to be sustained, the UK needs to remain a receptive and attractive base for inward and outward investment".

Housing: Owner Occupiers
3.13 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that present and prospective owner occupiers are given adequate financial protection by the current arrangements in the owner occupied housing sector.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, people

1401
who own a house have either inherited or bought it. All buyers qualify for mortgage interest relief up to £30,000 on their sole or main residence. Secure tenants of public authority housing who exercise the right to buy also have the advantage of buying at less than market value. Prospective buyers should take advice before committing themselves, and should consider shared ownership if they cannot afford to buy outright.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In 1979 2,500 houses were repossessed. In 1989 the figure was 16,000 and it is predicted that 115,000 to 120,000 houses will be repossessed this year. Those houses belonging to owner occupiers have been repossessed as their owners cannot meet their commitments. The figure of repossessions for this year represents a fortyfold increase. It appears that the Government have managed to organise a slaughter of the innocents with regard to the owner occupied sector.
The Minister has referred to the sale of council houses. Sympathetic financial treatment is being meted out to council house tenants. Some of those tenants are now receiving £40,000 and £50,000 discounts when purchasing their houses. In real terms that represents a subsidy of £80 to £100 a week on their mortgage repayments. Where is the equal society that the Prime Minister talks about when the purchase of properties is loaded so heavily in favour of one section of society? Will the Government give the same sympathetic treatment to those in the owner occupied sector as they mete out to those who buy council houses''
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord commented on financial protection for prospective buyers or home owners. I have to assume from what the noble Lord has said that he is critical of the right-to-buy scheme. He also appears to be critical of the extent to which people who enter the right-to-buy scheme receive discounts. The discounts are calculated according to the value given to a house as a vacant properly on the open market. That is not the case with council housing. A council house represents a secured tenancy and as such is worth little to a local authority. We are discussing whether those houses should be sold. If the discount is reduced, fewer people will be able to afford to purchase council houses. It is our view that home ownership should be extended to as many people as possible.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that is precisely why I have asked that the sympathetic financial arrangements offered to local authority tenants should be extended to those in the private sector. I am not asking the Government to stop the sale of council houses. However, I must ask the Minister again whether she is aware that the subsidy given on the purchase of a council house amounts to £80 to £100 a week. I do not begrudge council tenants that subsidy, but I believe that similar treatment should be meted out to young people who are being evicted from their homes, probably for ever. Often those houses are the first houses those young people have been able to buy.
1402
All I am asking is that the Government should try to achieve the fairer society about which Mr. Major talks.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, much is being done to help first-time buyers. There is a raft of shared ownership arrangements of which first-time buyers can make use. The economy is now more buoyant and inflation has been reduced, as have interest rates. Those factors also make it easier for young people to purchase houses. However, unless one considers reducing the discount offered to people who wish to buy council houses, a policy that offers financial help to anyone who is below a certain income to enable him to buy a house simply cannot be afforded. Perhaps the noble Lord is suggesting that such a policy will appear in the Labour Party manifesto. However, that would fly totally in the face of what the Shadow Chancellor is saying in another place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do not the Government have some duty as regards existing owner occupiers, particularly young people? Is it not the case that many of those young people were lured into buying houses that they could not afford by the availability of double mortgage income tax relief? Were not the lending institutions irresponsible, and encouraged to be so by the Government, in lending too much money to people who could not afford the repayments?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord's final point is important. People should take as much advice as possible before entering into the purchase of a house. However, I maintain that to give a subsidy to anyone below a certain income who wishes to buy a house anywhere in the country would be a new and expensive burden on the taxpayer. If the noble Lord is advocating that policy, I must ask him from where the money is to come. In the meantime much is being done to help young people purchase property. As I have said, there is a raft of measures available which vary from enabling someone to be the shared owner of a property to enabling him to be the full owner of a property.

Criminal Justice Commission: Report
3.18 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of public anxiety regarding legal procedures for dealing with miscarriages of justice, and in the light of the Winston Silcott case, they will request the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice to expedite its report and recommendations.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is looking in the wrong direction. The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice was asked to make every effort to complete its work within two years. Given the very wide range of subjects which it has been asked to consider, we do not think that the Royal

1403
Commission could reasonably be expected to bring forward its report, but we hope that it will be able to adhere to what is already a very exacting timetable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am delighted to receive a reply from the noble Earl even though I had anticipated receiving a reply from another Minister. Does not the Minister agree that our judicial system—of which we have been so proud and wish to continue to be proud—has been definitely affected by such recent cases as the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven and the Silcott case? Is it not a fact that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission which the noble Earl mentioned cover a variety of proposed reforms or examinations of the criminal law? Does he not think that the forecast of a two-year period before the Royal Commission reports justifies the Government asking that there should be an urgent interim report into that part of the mandate given to the Royal Commission which deals with miscarriages of justice?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, prepared his questions thinking that he would be addressing them to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That gives me even more cause for anxiety because the noble Lord is always particularly generous to me in a way which he may not be to one of his colleagues of his own legal distinction.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly referred to the anxiety which people feel about those cases. That is why my right honourable friend set up a Royal Commission. Many of the matters under examination by the Royal Commission are interrelated. It is difficult to pick out one and concentrate on that. The conduct of the review is a matter for the Royal Commission. It is unlikely that it would wish to approach its task in a disjointed way. Whether or not it makes an interim report is a matter for the Royal Commission. I guess that it will prefer to deal with the matter in the round and make a full report at the end of its deliberations.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it was precisely the need for a comprehensive review of methods of investigation, mounting prosecutions, evidence and procedure which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission? Would it not be far better if we awaited its report, knowing how serious the matter is and how important the investigation, rather than trying to make the commission come to any rushed decisions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is entirely right. The whole point of setting up a Royal Commission is to have an in-depth study. To ask the commission to rush it would be wrong. My noble and learned friend is also right in saying that there are a great many interrelated problems. For that reason it was decided that a Royal Commission was the most appropriate course. It would be right to await the report of the Royal Commission rather than trying to rush the matter.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, should it not be borne in mind that one of our policemen was slain? Somebody murdered him. Will that matter be pursued when the Royal Commission reports or is it still under investigation? Whoever killed that policeman is free.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is quite correct to say that behind that particular incident, to which part of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, referred, is a whole series of events which culminated in the murder of a policeman. The action that is being taken is a matter for the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. The original investigation was intense and wide-ranging but no significant information has been forthcoming in response to police appeals. The police are ready to consider any new information from witnesses or from any other source which may have something to offer.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a difference between the word "rush" and the word "expedite"? Does he not consider that having to wait for a period of two years —which will be followed by the time required for complex legislation—is too much to ask of a public who are seriously worried by this run of miscarriages of justice which our courts are unfortunately unable to deal with under their present powers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not wish to get involved in a matter of semantics with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to the difference between "rush" and "expedite". The single result of either would be that the Royal Commission would produce a report, whether rushed or expedited, earlier than it would wish. I do not think that that would be right.
As regards the public anxiety, of course there is anxiety when any wrongdoing or malpractice appears. Over the past year or so there has been a series of high profile cases which would appear to involve wrongdoing on the part of the police. We must not allow such unrepresentative cases to obscure the fact that most police officers do an excellent job in very hard, difficult and sometimes frightening and dangerous circumstances.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that past experience has shown that frequently governments have taken as long to consider a Royal Commission report as it took to compile the report itself? Will the noble Earl give the House an undertaking that whenever the report of the Royal Commission is made public the Government will give it immediate and urgent attention?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course no government would set up a Royal Commission of this nature on such a subject without considering its conclusions very carefully and with great urgency.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for the stress he has placed on the importance of getting this right and ask him to take note that that view is not confined to any one quarter of the House?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope that no quarter of the House would insinuate that we do not want to get it right.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important to bear in mind that there have been important changes in criminal procedure since some of the early cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is perfectly true. Some of the changes in procedure have been due to the introduction of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and of the Crown Prosecution Service, both of which were the result of a previous Royal Commission investigation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, picking up the last point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I very much agree with what he said. Is he not aware that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is now recognised by most people as being a considerable improvement in the law because it followed detailed and careful consideration by a Royal Commission, unlike some other pieces of legislation which have not been handled in the same way? Is he also aware that many of us have deep sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon? Nevertheless, given the fact that these issues are, as he said, interrelated, it is very difficult to see how there could possibly be an interim report.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for that remark. Whenever I have looked at the problem from the viewpoint of a small part of a department it has been clear that, whether it is the police, the courts, the way evidence is taken or given, or the powers of the courts to cross-examine, these matters are intricate and tied together. It is very difficult to home in on one and deal with that in isolation. One has to take them all together. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, quite rightly said, it is important to get it right in the end.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, can the noble Earl give the House an assurance that pending the report, which it has been said will take at least two years, some immediate administrative steps will be taken to prevent the wickedness which has occurred being repeated?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the courts can only come to a conclusion and a judgment on the evidence which is placed before them. In those particular cases the courts came to a certain judgment. It was only later that new evidence became available, and it was as a result of that new evidence that my right honourable friend referred the matter back to the courts. That is pretty convincing evidence of the fairness and justice of the judicial system.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the chairman of the Royal Commission, the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, while being the soul of courtesy, has a withering way with wafflers? Does not
1406
the noble Earl agree that he must be allowed time to cross-examine the massed regiments of lawyers who will have to give evidence before him?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, he will need a lot of time. I have seen some of the evidence that has been sent to him and I was very glad that I was not part of the Royal Commission.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, in view of his rather depressing forecast of the length of time before we see any results from the Royal Commission, will the noble Earl take note of the great public anxiety occasioned by the delay between the time a conviction occurs and when the Court of Appeal can make time to hear that appeal, particularly in relation to cases where there is an appeal agaist conviction and the man is serving a sentence?
Will the noble Earl also bear in mind that in August of this year out of 250 cases which came into that category about 72 had been waiting for over six months and about 15 for between 12 and 18 months? In the light of the fact that a number of those cases ultimately proved to be miscarriages of justice, will the noble Earl indicate to the House what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take as a matter of urgency to ensure that those delays are cut?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is always a cause of anxiety if justice gets delayed for any length of time. The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to the case of Silcott. I took the trouble to find out the facts in that case.
Any Home Secretary has to be cautious of seeking to interfere with decisions which are reached by the courts. However, my right honourable friend received representation on 15th July 1991 that Silcott's confession was unreliable. Until that moment there had been no question of the authority of the interview concerned. It was 15th July that my right honourable friend had the information. He asked the Metropolitan Police for a report on it on 24th July. The Metropolitan Police quite rightly asked the Essex police —an outside force—to go into the matter. The report from the Essex police arrived on 26th September and my right honourable friend referred the cases of Silcott and Braithwaite on 26th September. Therefore, from that point of view there was no delay.

House of Lords Offices: Select Committee Report
3.31 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The meeting of the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices was solely taken up with appointing the four sub-committees. The names of those who will serve on those sub-committees are listed in the report.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Commit tees.)
Following is the report referred to:

SUB-COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
In its 3rd report, session 1990–91 (H.L. Paper 69), the Committee recommended that from the beginning of the present parliamentary session it should have four subcommittees with new responsibilities, as follows—

(i) Finance and Staff;

(ii) Administration and Works;

(iii) Library and Computers;

(iv) Refreshment.

The Committee also recommended that the new sub-committees should have not more than 11 members each and that in deciding the membership of sub-committees greater weight should be given to expert knowledge and relevant experience than to strict party balance.
The House agreed to the Committee's recommendations on 10 July 1991.
The Committee has accordingly appointed the following Lords to form the sub-committees—

FINANCE AND STAFF SUB-COMMITTEE

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Jenkins of Hillhead

L. Ampthill

B. Nicol

L. Bancroft

B. Seccombe

L. Cledwyn of Penrhos

L. Thomson of Monifieth

L. Dainton

L. Waddington (L. Privy Seal)

L. Jenkin of Roding

with the Clerk of the Parliments.

ADMINISTRATION AND WORKS SUB-COMMITTEE

L. Aberdare (Chairman)

L. Graham of Edmonton

L. Allen of Abbeydale

L. Hesketh

L. Ampthill

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Dainton

B. Seccombe

L. Dean of Beswick

L. Tordoff

L. Gibson

with the Clerk of the Parliments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

LIBRARY AND COMPUTERS SUB COMMITTEE

L. Bonham-Carter

L. Peston

B. Brigstocke

L. Mclntosh of Haringey

L. Browne-Wilkinson

L. McColl of Dulwich

L. Dainton (Chairman)

L. Morris of Castle Morris

L. Flowers

L. Walton of Detchant

E. Howe

with the Clerk of the Parliments.

REFRESHMENT SUB-COMMITTEE

L. Ampthill (Chairman)

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Colnbrook

L. Graham of Edmonton

B. David

L. Mason of Barnsley

L. Denham

Ly. Saltoun of Abernethy

B. Hamwee

L. Tordoff

L. Hesketh

with the Clerk of the Parliaments
On Question, Motion agreed to.

King's Cross Railways Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The orders made by the Commons which are referred to revive the Bill, which is a private Bill at present in another place. It will continue its progress there.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of 26th November.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Severn Bridges Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a hybrid Bill and therefore goes to a Select Committee. The names recommended by the Committee of Selection are shown on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named of the Select Committee to consider the Bill—

L. Ampthill (Chairman),

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Galpern,

L. Redesdale,

V. St. Davids;

and that the Committee do meet on Monday 2nd December at 10.30 a.m. in Committee Room 4.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It was agreed by your Lordships yesterday that this Bill should go to a Public Bill Committee. The names proposed for those to sit on the Committee, agreed by the Committee of Selection, are on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Public Bill Committee to consider the Bill—

L. Allen of Abbeydale,

V. Astor,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Brightman,

L. Congleton,

B. Denton of Wakefield,

B. Faithfull,

E. Ferrers,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Houghton of Sowerby,

L. Morris of Castle Morris,

L. Peyton of Yeovil,

L. Richard,

L. Renton,

That the procedure of the Committee shall be so far as possible that of a Committee of the Whole House;
That the report of the Committee's debates be published from day to day and the Minutes of the Committee's proceedings be published as appendices to the Minutes of Proceedings of the House;
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday next at a quarter past three o'clock in the Moses Room.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the noble Lord the Leader of the House know, we support the proposal that the Charities Bill should go to a Public Bill Committee because we wish to see the Bill on the statute book after due examination. However, I note from the wording of the Motion,
"That the Committee do meet on Tuesday next at a quarter past three o'clock in the Moses Room".
The House will recall that the last time a Bill was referred to a Public Bill Committee was in 1985 when the Pilotage Bill was so committed. There was a good deal of argument and disagreement as to whether or not the reference to a Public Bill Committee had been a success. There was division among the Members of the Committee on the matter.
One problem was that the Committee met in the Moses Room, which is adjacent to this House, and that sittings were held in the afternoon when the House was also sitting. Many difficulties arose which I believe could have been avoided if the Committee had met upstairs. An even better solution would have been to meet upstairs in the morning. In order to ensure that the reference on this occasion is given an opportunity to be a success, perhaps I may ask whether it is possible to find room upstairs for the Committee to meet in the morning.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with regard to holding the Committee in the Moses Room, I am afraid that the pressure on our committee rooms is now absolutely extreme. With private Bills, hybrid Bills and numerous other ordinary committee meetings, it is quite impossible to find a place for the Committee to meet other than in the Moses Room.
The Moses Room has certain advantages as well as disadvantages. It is somewhat like this House in the way that it is set out. It has a Bar of the House. I believe that it is not too bad. Since the Pilotage Bill we have tried to improve the facilities in respect of sound, and so on.
With regard to the times of sitting, the first meeting will be in the afternoon because it seemed to us that people would be present without having to alter their diaries. But it is entirely up to the Committee at its first meeting, to decide when it will meet in future. I think it quite likely that Members will decide to meet in the morning which I am sure will please the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for his reply. However, the fact remains that the location of the Committee in the Moses Room is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is an important Bill and an important reference to a Public Bill Committee. I know that many noble Lords would like to see such references become a success. Therefore to say that there are other matters which must be discussed upstairs is not an adequate reply. After all, as the House well knows, the practice in the other place is to refer Committees upstairs. If they were adjacent: to the House of Commons there would be a riot there as well.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not agree. There is only one really large room upstairs which is divisible into two. That is able therefore to accommodate two committees. We then use the Moses Room which I do not think is all that unfortunate a place in which to hold meetings. I have many meetings there.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, was not one of the Committee meetings on the Pilotage Bill taken upstairs? Were not both the upstairs room and the Moses Room found to be inconvenient?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, having been involved as a Minister in putting through a Bill—admittedly, shorter than the Charities Bill—in the Moses Room, I am bound to say that on that occasion we found no difficulty about holding sittings there. share the view of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that we wish to make this a success. Certainly, if there is a problem about location after Tuesday afternoon, no doubt that can he discussed through the usual channels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 11,

Schedule 1,

Clause 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 27,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 28 and 29,

Schedule 4,

Clause 30.—(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion,
Line 4, leave out ("Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule I") and insert ("Clauses 1 to 7")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion before the House is a procedural Motion and I shall attempt to confine my remarks to procedural remarks. I shall certainly not indulge in comment on the content of Clauses 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and Schedule 1 which my amendments remove from the immediate consideration of the Committee.
The matter is one of great importance to the reputation and responsibilities of this House as a revising Chamber. Noble Lords may recall from previous debates that when the Bill was published at the beginning of this month, on the same day a consultation paper was issued by the Department of the Environment on compulsory competitive tendering entitled Competing for Quality. That is the subject matter of those four clauses and the schedule. The date for receipt of replies to the consultation process

1411
is 31st January 1992. It will be obvious to your Lordships that consideration of the Bill in this House will be complete before 31st January 1992. For that reason alone it would be unsatisfactory to have a consultation process simultaneously with consideration of the Bill in this House. Furthermore, it would be unsatisfactory if the House did not have available to it the responses to the consultation document, if that document is taken seriously.
But the situation is worse than that. It is clear that in this Bill we come closer to the doctrine of legislation by this Government—that the Secretary of State shall do as he likes—than we have ever come before. The poor old Department of the Environment is a little out of step. Other departments appear to have realised that the Government will lose office within the next nine months and have gone out of their way to make Bills as precise as possible in order to tie the hands of the Labour Government which will take their place. However, the Department of the Environment has not yet woken up to that reality. The clauses which this House is being asked to consider in Committee and in later stages are full of references to the powers of the Secretary of State but without indication of what the Secretary of State will do with those powers.
It is entirely unsatisfactory for this House to be asked to consider those clauses under those circumstances. We as Members of a revising Chamber cannot possibly do our job properly. My amendment does not go against the decision that the Bill shall be considered in Committee. However, it will delay that consideration until the Government have reported to the House the results of the consultation. That would be in accordance with the traditions of this House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. Consultation is now taking place but consultation is always difficult. The essence is that those who are consulted must have confidence that what they say will be taken seriously. The reputation of this House and of the working of the Government is before us today.
On Second Reading I asked the Minister what the Government's response would be if there were a negative answer to the consultation. I hope that she can explain what will happen if the consultees say no to the consultation. Indeed, it would be better if she conceded that we should wait to hear the response. There is a risk that the consultation exercise will be regarded as cynical.
A White Paper was published simultaneously with the consultation paper. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish to look at the issue in the context of the Citizen's Charter. With regard to local authorities, it asks for higher standards, better value for money and so forth. It also states that people should be given more choice. However, is there a real choice if those who have the opportunity to respond to consultation feel restrained by legislation which is already in place? On my reading of the Bill the legislation will apply to all council services involving the application of any technical or financial expertise. Everyone working in a local authority up to and including a chief executive must fall within that provision. It is most serious and
1412
wide-ranging. Unless the amendment is agreed to the citizens whom we ask to comment during consultation might rightly say, "You tell us that you hear us, but are you really listening?".
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment. The House has a most important Bill in front of it and deliberately to cut out discussion in Committee of important parts will lead inevitably to great confusion. If it is the view of some noble Lords opposite that certain clauses will require further elucidation in the light of consultation no doubt they will make that point when we deal with those clauses. However, to amputate from the Committee stage any discussion of those clauses will produce considerable disorder in the management of the affairs of this House. I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not claim credit for the detail of the wording of the amendment. It does not amputate the discussion in Committee. The House has already taken the decision to refer the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House. The amendment is worded carefully to ensure that the staging of the Committee is such that the results of the consultation will be available before the relevant clause is considered. Nothing is amputated.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord says that nothing is amputated but that is exactly what the amendment does. It breaks up the normal order of discussion. It is no good the noble Lord saying that the effect is to delay discussion until whatever he wants has taken place. The amendment amputates the Bill and I am sorry if he cannot understand that simple English word.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the discussion will not be delayed until whatever the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants has taken place. The Government have decided what must take place, and that is the consultation process. If the Government are serious about consultation they should not put on the statute book primary legislation which overturns that consultation before it has taken place.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, relevant to that is a further point. It is some time since I read the consultation paper Competing for Quality. In the meantime, I have read Clause 8 of the Bill and I am sorry that it is necessary to refer briefly to it. Clause 8 empowers the Secretary of State to draw up affirmative orders in order to take particular action. It is that action which is dependent on the consultation paper and not the primary legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is precisely because the Government are serious about consultation that I shall invite the House to reject the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I listened to his comments in support of his amendment that the consideration of the Local Government Bill by a Committee of your Lordships' House should exclude,

1413
for the time being, consideration of Clauses 8 to 11 and Schedule 1. The noble Lord gave notice of his intentions during the debate on Second Reading.
Your Lordships will appreciate that this is an unusual situation and not one that has precedents in this House or in another place. Your Lordships' House has a reputation for careful consideration of legislation brought before it by the Government of the day, and deals with its responsibilities thoroughly and in detail. Noble Lords opposite have at their disposal a wide range of methods of focusing attention on individual provisions. I have no doubt that they will use those to the full as this Bill proceeds through Committee.
It is precisely in Committee that it would be appropriate for them to raise the sort of detailed question which the noble Lord's amendment addresses. They will do so against the background of the principles for the extension of compulsory tendering set out in the Citizen's Charter White Paper, and of the consultation paper Competing for Quality—Competition in the Provision of Local Services referred to by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. It sets out our intentions in detail and we have invited comments on it. It is important to note that in addition any secondary legislation which will flow from this part of the Bill will be subject to the usual scrutiny of both Houses. In particular, regulations consequential on Clause 8—which I believe most offends the noble Lord—would be subject to affirmative resolution.
The opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and other noble Lords will have to put forward amendments to the Bill applies to Clauses 8 to 11 and Schedule 1 just as it does to the other provisions of the Bill. It is open to all noble Lords to table amendments removing from the Bill the clauses to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, takes exception and to table amendments which will have the effect of delaying their implementation or which will have the effect of restricting the scope of the provisions. Your Lordships will then be able to consider in detail those amendments and the clauses to which they refer. I see no justification for denying your Lordships the opportunity to put forward and consider such amendments.
I suggest that the proposal is rather inconsistent. Another consultation document has been issued on another part of the Bill; that is, guidance to the Local Government Commission. The noble Lord has chosen to be selective and that rather suggests that this is less a matter of principle and more a delaying tactic on the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asks what will happen if the results of the consultation indicate that our proposals are not liked or should be modified. That is the reason for the consultation document: it will influence the content of the regulations which come before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will then be given a full opportunity to discuss the regulations and to approve or not to approve them.
I ask the House not to break with convention but to give way to the normal rigorous method of
1414
scrutinising legislation. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I invite the House to accept the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies, I make the point that the Government are hiding once again behind the pretence that affirmative resolutions and prayers against negative instruments can be dealt with by your Lordships. We all know that they can and are debated. However, there is a convention that we do not divide on those. I say from these Benches that if the Government persist in hiding behind that kind of secondary legislation, there will come a time when we shall insist on dividing the House on those statutory instruments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is also a convention that we do not remove from Bills large numbers of clauses and set them aside for discussion on another day. If the House does not like what is in regulations, then it must have its say. That is why regulations come before the House especially in the form of affirmative resolutions.
It would be quite wrong and quite precipitate of this Government, in advance of consulting the people, to take a view of what people may think and put that into the regulations at this stage. I implore the House to reject the amendment and to agree to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister should plead in support of the double fault which the Government have now committed by issuing this week a consultation paper on guidance to the Local Government Commission. That is fairly indefensible, but at least Part II expresses the Government's views about what the Local Government Commission should do. The draft guidance notes for consultation merely fill out the detail of that.
Clauses 8 to 11 and Schedule 1 are entirely different from that. Anybody reading objectively those clauses and that schedule cannot for a moment work out what is the Government's intention because the Government have not made up their minds. For that reason, it is unsatisfactory that we should seek to amend measures which have not been adequately discussed and not clearly set out.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, has the noble Lord totally ignored the plethora of detail set out in the two documents—the Citizen's Charter White Paper and the document on local competitive services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is digging herself deeper into a hole. The Government are asking us to sign a blank cheque on the face of the Bill. There are documents which are not statutory documents, both in the form of the Citizen's Charter and the consultation document. The content of those documents is not reflected on the face of the Bill. The Government ask us to agree to those clauses in the Bill. I put it to your Lordships that it would be entirely improper for us to do that and I seek the opinion of the House on this matter.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Judd, L.

Airedale, L.

Kagan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kennet, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Birk, B.

Kissin, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bottomley, L.

Listowel, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Longford, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L.

McCarthy, L.

Chester, Bp.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cudlipp, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Desai, L.

Mayhew, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mishcon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Molloy, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ennals, L.

Mulley, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Ezra, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Falkender, B.

Porritt, L.

Falkland, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Rochester, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Scanlon, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Seear, B.

Gregson, L.

Serota, B.

Grimond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hampton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Underhill, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Willis, L.

Jay, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Boardman, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Borthwick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Annan, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Arran, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Astor, V.

Butterworth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caldecote, V.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Balfour, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carnock, L.

Beloff, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L

Belstead, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Bessborough, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Blatch, B.

Cockfield, L.

1416

Colnbrook, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Morris, L.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

De Freyne, L.

Munster, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Downshire, M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Effingham, E.

Nelson, E.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Faithfull. B.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Flather, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Fortescue, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

Pym, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Quinton, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rees, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renton, L.

Renwick, L.

Harvington, L.

Rodney, L.

Haslam, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Henley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Hives, L.

Sandys, L.

Holderness, L.

Savile, L.

Hooper, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howe, E.

Shannon, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharples, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sherfield, L.

Killearn, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Kitchener, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Knollys, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Stockton, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lawrence, L.

Liverpool, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Lytton, E.

Terrington, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L.

Trumpington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ullswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Masham of llton, B.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

Waddington, L.

Mersey, V.

Wharton, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Offshore Safety Bill [H.L.]
4.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Chairman of Committees in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Application of Part I of 1974 Act for offshore purposes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCarthy: As we made clear on Second Reading, we generally support the Bill's purposes; nevertheless, we have a number of criticisms to make and it is convenient to make some of the more serious ones now in relation to Clause 1. The purpose of the Bill, as the Minister said on Second Reading, is the prevention of accidents offshore based upon an acceptance of Lord Cullen's proposals.
The Minister then said, at col. 658 of Hansard of 11th November, 1991:
"The Government immediately accepted all 106 recommendations",
of the Cullen Report.
In opposing the clause, we say that the face of the Bill does not reflect that commitment; that the Bill is a narrow Bill which deals merely with those aspects of Lord Cullen's report which dealt with safety; that there are a number of Lord Cullen's recommendations which do not find themselves in the Bill; and that we should like to see the Government make certain commitments, if not that they can be put in the Bill, that they will follow in the near future.
When the Bill was going into Committee we sought to make a number of amendments. We wanted to move amendments dealing with safety and, in particular, with safety committees. We wanted to follow through Lord Cullen's recommendations, in particular, recommendations 27, 30 and 31. We tabled amendments attempting to do something about that. Recommendation 27 states:
"The regulatory body, operators and contractors should support and encourage the involvement of the offshore work force in safety. In particular, first line supervisors should involve their workforce teams in everyday safety".
We do not find provisions in the Bill which we consider deal with that recommendation.
Just as importantly, recommendation 30 states:
"Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation by a provision similar to Sec 58(i) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978".
We do not see that provision in the Bill. It is true that the Minister said that at a convenient time in the future the Government intend to legislate to that effect; but we do not see why the Government could not frame a Bill which would have enabled that provision to be included.
Finally, in relation to Lord Cullen's recommendations, recommendation 31 states:
"The Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989 should be modified to the effect that the training of safety representatives should be determined and paid for by the operator".
Again, the Minister told us that the matter was subject to review; but we have no time span for that review. There is no sense of urgency. Safety representatives are not protected against victimisation. The safety committees have not been modified to the effect that the training of safety representatives shall be determined and paid for by the operators. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with the support, encouragement and involvement of the offshore workforce in safety matters. Therefore, we ask the Government what are their intentions in the immediate future.
1418
We know that we cannot amend the Bill. We know that, even if we change the Bill's Long Title. We have been told that the Bill in its present context is essentially a Bill about safety, and that to do the things we want to do, it would become a Bill not just about safety, but about safety and employment.
We ask the Minister to tell us now what the Government intend to do about those other matters, which are connected to safety but which have an employment context.
Perhaps I may raise one issue to which I ask the noble Viscount to address himself. We were told that one of our amendments was not possible because of the Long Title of the Bill. It was to deal with the situation where a worker feels that he or she is working in unsafe conditions. The issue is whether in that circumstance a worker can refuse to work as an individual and if that constitutes a breach of contract which justifies dismissal. If that is lawful, we also wish to know whether workers as a group could also refuse to work in what is regarded as unsafe conditions. Let us suppose that when workers decide not to work as a group that action is regarded in some sense as a strike or withdrawal of labour designed to put pressure on an employer. Is that safe from the legal point of view or does it constitute the kind of action which could be said to be the subject of a fair dismissal?
In another place on 20th March, the Minister of State claimed in Committee, at col. 391:
"It is unlawful to work in unsafe conditions and does not constitute industrial action".
That is the Government's position. The Minister of State went on to say that,
"a simple refusal to work in unsafe conditions does not constitute industrial action".
We consider that that does not fit with recent case law. I refer to Power Packing Case Makers v. Faust 1983 and Wilkins v. Cochrane 1984. We say that those cases put into very considerable doubt the position from the point of view of the courts as to whether it is lawful simply to refuse to work in unsafe conditions and whether that might not constitute industrial action.
Therefore, we are asking the Government that should they do nothing about the Bill and the clause now, they will undertake—if they are fortunate enough to survive long enough—to implement their present proposals for further legislation as embodied in the Green Paper on further industrial relations reform. Perhaps they will also say whether they are telling us here today that they are going to put these matters into a future employment Bill. I ask the noble Viscount to tell the Committee whether the Government will do something about the three recommendations in the Cullen Report which are not included, and in particular that they will do something about clarifying the position as to whether or not it is lawful or unlawful to work in unsafe conditions. It is on that basis that we oppose Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Rochester: At Second Reading I said that on these Benches our general attitude to the Bill was one of support in so far as the Bill followed the recommendations of the Cullen Report on the Piper Alpha disaster. Therefore, it may seem strange at

1419
Committee stage for me to start by supporting the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in opposing the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. The explanation is straightforward: in my view the Bill does not go far enough in implementing Lord Cullen's recommendations and this is my only opportunity in Committee to say so.
At Second Reading, like other noble Lords, I drew particular attention to the recommendations concerning safety committees and representatives to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has already referred. Lord Cullen stressed the value of a safety committee system as a means of providing for new ideas and solutions to be brought forward and for passing verbatim and uncensored safety comments up the management line. He also said that the system helps to enforce the principle that each employee is responsible for his own safety and for that of his fellow workers.
I agree with Lord Cullen's conclusion that employee representatives on these committees need not be drawn from trade unions, but in my view it is essential to ensure that all employees are involved in the promotion of safety at work. At Second Reading I said that I should like to see some reference to that matter in the Bill and that I might wish to return to it in Committee. It appears that this is the only chance I have to do that. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, told us earlier, provision for the appointment of safety representatives in Committee is made by regulations under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act and the whole question of their effectiveness is now subject to review. Meanwhile, there is no opportunity to pursue that matter further and that I regret.
Similar considerations apply to Lord Cullen's recommendation that safety representatives should be protected against victimisation, which is another point already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. We are told that the Government intend to amend employment protection legislation to ensure that any representative who has been dismissed or otherwise victimised can gain redress through an industrial tribunal. But such legislation falls outside the scope of the present Bill because it deals only with safety matters and not with employment issues. The matter of victimisation is to be dealt with only when a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself, and that, too, I regret.
At Second Reading I also drew attention to the statement in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that there would be no increase in public expenditure or manpower in consequence of the Bill. I questioned how far, if that were so, the resources available to the Health and Safety Commission, particularly as regards the number of inspectors, would be sufficient to enable the Health and Safety Executive fully to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations.
I take this opportunity to thank the noble Viscount for his helpful letter to me explaining what I should have realised before; that in practical terms the transfer of responsibility for offshore safety and of staff from the Department of Energy to the HSE has
1420
already taken place and that the resources available to the commission have been increased to cover the other tasks recommended by Lord Cullen. That has certainly relieved me of one anxiety. But I continue to regret that, despite the enormous risks that are run by those who have to take part in offshore operations, the opportunity has not been taken to deal in the Bill with any of Lord Cullen's recommendations concerning the employment aspects of safety offshore. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that Clause 1 of the Bill is quite inadequate in that respect.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I am disappointed that we need to debate whether Clause 1 should stand part of this Bill. At Second Reading I thought that it had been welcomed by both the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. An amendment such as this to remove Clause 1 would have the effect of wrecking the entire Bill. I understand the concerns of both noble Lords about victimisation and other anxieties and I shall deal with those matters shortly.
Clause 1 is the key provision of the Bill. It paves the way for one of the vital recommendations of Lord Cullen—the reform and enhancement of existing offshore health and safety legislation. It is an essential step towards the creation of the "goal setting" regulatory regime set out by Lord Cullen. It is not the intention of this Bill to implement all of Lord Cullen's recommendations. This Bill deals with the technical legal measures necessary for the development of the new legal framework which will apply to offshore health and safety. Without this clause the process of reform cannot begin. The Government are committed to implementing all of Lord Cullen's recommendations. This will take time but this clause and this Bill is essential to the overall process. On this ground alone I commend the clause to your Lordships.
I now need to deal with the issue of victimisation. I reiterate that there is no question of Lord Cullen's recommendation on victimisation being ignored. The Government have accepted it. We have accepted all the recommendations of Lord Cullen's outstanding report. The current Bill is not the right place to implement this particular recommendation. That is because the Bill is an enabling measure confined to health and safety. It is not concerned with employment issues. We intend to amend employment protection legislation to implement both Lord Cullen's recommendation and the requirements of a European directive called the framework directive.
Perhaps I can explain our intentions for implementing the recommendation and the relevant provisions of the framework directive. The directive has to be implemented by the end of 1992. It requires that certain employees with specific health and safety functions or other workers who take action in the face of imminent danger should not be victimised for taking such action. We intend to ensure that such employees will be able to complain to an industrial tribunal if they are dismissed or suffer other victimisation by their employer for carrying out their

1421
health and safety duties. Extending those provisions offshore, as it is our intention to do, will fulfil Lord Cullen's recommendation.
So the Government's commitment cannot be questioned. We will implement those measures just as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle is available. Even under current legislation, anyone who is qualified to make a complaint of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal would already have a very strong case if he or she were dismissed for making justified complaints about health and safety risks.
Of course it would be quite unacceptable if employees were victimised for pursuing justified fears. As I have said before, victimisation of workers who raise safety concerns is completely unacceptable to the Government and to the HSE. It undermines the objective of increased safety awareness. If there is any evidence of intimidation taking place, HSE will look into it: the name and address of an offshore inspector is displayed on every offshore installation and anonymity is guaranteed if requested.
The noble Lord also asked about safety committees and the workforce involvement. The safety cases in preparation at the moment will require safety management systems which will involve the workforce. The regulations for those are in hand. There is a timetable by which they must be presented to the Health and Safety Executive and I believe that that is the proper way to deal with it. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, mentioned safety committees, and I believe I sought to concern myself with that. I do not believe that changes can be made to the 1989 safety representatives and safety committee regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act until the Bill is enacted, making the regulations statutory provisions. It would not be appropriate to make detailed provision in the Bill while the review which I announced is being carried out. Changes could be made under the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act in advance of the Act being made part of the "existing statutory provisions." However, it will not be appropriate to amend the regulations while that review is under way. It will be more appropriate to make any changes to the regulations as part of a wider reform of legislation.
In conclusion therefore it is essential to maintaining and improving offshore safety standards that the clause stands in the Bill. I hope that the reassurances I have given to your Lordships on victimisation and other matters are sufficient and that the clause will stand.
Lord McCarthy: We are naturally disappointed with the Minister's response. He said that he was surprised that we needed to debate the Bill. I cannot understand why. Most of the points were raised in passing in speeches made from this side of the House at Second Reading. We made criticisms of the Bill. We said that it was not implementing all aspects of the Cullen Report, although the Government said and said repeatedly that they accept all those recommendations. We must ask ourselves why the Government chose to implement some of the recommendations and not others. Why do they come forward with some of the recommendations—to a considerable degree as a
1422
matter of urgency—and yet allow others to be left until there is an appropriate Bill on industrial relations? The Minister now says others can be left until the Government decide what to do in regard to the framework directive, which they must consider before the end of 1992.
Why are some of the recommendations left out of the Bill? There is no necessity for that. The Minister said that it is an enabling Bill. But it does not have to be an enabling Bill. God did not decide that it should be an enabling Bill; the Government decided. God did not decide that it should deal with safety and not employment; the Government decided. It was possible for the Government to give us a Bill which carried out every recommendation that Lord Cullen put forward. Of course, further legislation may be needed. When the Government get round to dealing with the framework directive there will need to be further legislation. But that is no reason for the Bill to be narrowed in the way that it is. We see no reason for that.
Of course we shall not divide because we are in favour of what is on the face of the Bill. We wish at this stage to protest. We may come back in some other way on Report.
On Question, Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Increased penalties under Part I]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("(g) or (o)").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 1 is a probing amendment. I am not certain what the Government intended in drafting this specific section of the Bill. When we look at the line which we seek to amend, we see that it deals with penalties and offences. It says,
"A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) (g) or (o) above shall be liable",
and then it spells out the penalties. Subsections (1) (g) or (o) take us to Section 33 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, to which they refer.
When we look at Section 33 we see that it not only consists of the provisions in (g) or (o). Paragraph (g) says that it is an offence for a person,
"to contravene any requirement or prohibition imposed by an improvement notice or a prohibition notice (including any such notice as modified on appeal)".
Paragraph (o) says,
"to fail to comply with an order made by a court under section 42".
When we look at the section as a whole we see a number of other important provisions relating to offences. For example, under paragraph (h) it is an offence,
"intentionally to obstruct an inspector in the exercise or performance of his powers or duties".
Paragraph (k) says,
"to make a statement which he knows to be false or recklessly to make a statement which is false where the statement is made (i) in purported compliance with a requirement to furnish any information imposed by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions; or (ii) for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a document under any of the relevant statutory provisions to himself or another person".
Paragraph (I) refers to an offence intenionally to make a false entry in any register; subsection (m) refers to an offence where there is an intention to deceive, to forge or use a document issued or authorised to be issued and so on. Paragraph (n) refers to falsely pretending to be an inspector.
The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government why it was felt necessary simply to refer to paragraphs (g) and (o) of Section 33 when there are all those other provisions of the section which relate to serious offences and which may apply equally under the Bill. It is for the purpose of asking those question that we tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I think that Members of the Committee should be clear that the effect of this amendment will make every offence in Section 33(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 liable on summary conviction to a penalty of £20,000 or a term of imprisonment of not more than six months, or both. On conviction on indictment, those offences would be liable to imprisonment for up to two years or an unlimited fine or both.
Perhaps I may state at the outset that the introduction of Clause 4 of the Bill gives a clear signal that the Government are keen to see penalties exacted which match the seriousness of health and safety offences. But the proposed amendment would extend the penalties to almost every health and safety offence without discrimination. The Government oppose it for the following reasons.
First, on a technical point as drafted, the amendment would be inconsistent with Clause 4(2) of the Bill which provides for different penalties for breaches of Sections 2 to 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I understand that the intention of the amendment is to extend the higher penalties across the board. Secondly, the Government believe that their proposals to fix the penalty to suit the crime is just about right. There are three strands to this policy.
The first strand is that as a result of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 magistrates' statutory maximum power to fine for all offences on summary conviction will be raised to £5,000. The legislation will also allow magistrates to refer companies to Crown Courts, with unlimited powers to fine, for any offence which they consider requires a penalty beyond their powers. I believe that these changes will be welcomed. However, the Government are not convinced that they go far enough. When considering the need for high penalties, we believe that the Government must be concerned to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
As the second strand of the penalties policy, we have ensured in the Bill that the harshest penalties are reserved for those companies which knowingly break health and safety legislation by flouting notices or remedy orders. Doing so endangers both employees and the general public. Therefore, the punishment must reflect that fact.
The third strand is that the Government are proposing, in addition, to give magistrates the power to impose fines of up to £20,000 for breaches of the core health and safety duties on employers, occupiers,
1424
manufacturers and suppliers under Sections 2 to 6 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. About 25 per cent. of all health and safety cases are taken under those sections. The higher penalties will, therefore, bite. As I said before, if magistrates consider a fine of £20,000 to be insufficient then, for offences triable either way, they will be able to refer both individuals and companies to a higher court where fines are unlimited. I must emphasise the fact that it is for the courts to determine punishment within the framework set by the Government. In setting that framework, the Government must indicate which are he more serious offences. We believe that we have got this about right.
The third reason we oppose the amendment is that there are a number of offences which it would cover but which the Government do not consider suitable for these higher penalties. For example, the proposed amendment would extend the higher penalties to breaches of health and safety duties by employees under Section 7 and to any person, including a member of the public, who interferes with something provided to maintain health and safety standards under Section 8. The Government do not wish to subject the employees or the public to such stringent penalties. That would not further the aim of ensuring that business takes its health and safety responsibilities seriously.
Finally, we oppose the amendment because it would apply the higher penalties to offences which are triable only summarily in a magistrates' court. The reason for that is that they are not considered particularly serious and do not of themselves necessarily prejudice health and safety. Such offences include, for example, obstructing an inspector. Again, it is important to fit the punishment to the crime. Very few people are prosecuted for these offences. The cases are dealt with satisfactorily in the magistrates' courts.
I believe that the division of the cases in Section 33(1) is already catered for by further subsections of that section. It is just that we need to put in the increased penalties where necessary—that is, where we consider they are required—rather than putting in the blanket provision of the higher penalty for every offence. I can assure Members of the Committee that the Government have every intention of dealing firmly with those who commit health and safety offences. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not think that the amendment is safe. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The noble Viscount has made an effective case against the amendment which we wish to advance on the grounds that it would produce a blanket provision. However, it does not seem to me that his case is one which applies to the Bill as it stands. Of the 15 or so different paragraphs under this section of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the Government are covering only two. It is possible that the remaining 13 are not all equally heinous and do not all need the increased penalties. However, there is still some mystery as to why the Government have picked the two in question. If I understood the noble Viscount correctly, he said that the essence of the argument, for the most part, is that the provision in

1425
the Bill would get at people who deliberately violate notices. I should have thought that paragraph (c) of the 1974 Act which deals with contravening the terms of a licence was very close to that situation. Similarly, I believe that other items in that list also come very close to that; for example, contravening a notice in relation to paragraph (i).
Surely it is a very serious matter when an employer fails to discharge his responsibilities under Section 2 of the 1974 Act—that is, the positive general provision; in other words the one covered by paragraph (a). Some of those offences are directly related to a quite determined and intentional obstruction of inspectors. It seems to me that they should be covered. For example, paragraph (d) refers to the intentional obstruction of a "any person". Such a person could be an inspector. Moreover, paragraph (f) refers to preventing someone going to an inspector. There is also paragraph (h) which refers to the intentional obstruction of "an inspector"; paragraph (k) which refers to false statements; paragraph (1) which deals with false entries; paragraph (m) which deals with forgery; and paragraph (n) which refers to the actual impersonation of an inspector. Surely the latter is a very serious offence which should be covered by any reasonable improvement in penalties.
The Minister may say that the courts do not need all these powers. But, of course, if they do not need them all they will not use them. It is a question of which way we want to slant the legislation and whether we want to ensure that the courts at least have the powers that they need. If they decide they want to impose a low fine in such cases where someone has impersonated an inspector, that is a matter for them. But surely the courts should have rather more freedom and discretion as regards some of those very serious examples than they are given by the Bill at present.
Viscount Ullswater: The noble Lord put forward a good case. However, he continues to make the case that there should be a blanket maximum fine available for every offence. If he looks at Section 33(2) of the 1974 Act, he will see that some of the offences in the list to which he referred—that is, (d), (f), (h) and (n)—were selected for summary conviction only and that the maximum penalty under that subsection is £400. Those are the offences that I sought to indicate to the noble Lord will now be subject to a penalty of £5,000. Similarly, other cases which become triable either way—for example, (a), (b), (c), (g) and (i), and so on—would become subject to the increased fines that the Offshore Safety Bill now seeks to impose.
Therefore, returning to my original argument, we believe that the penalties should fit the crime. We are not seeking to change the difference in the penalties in this way; we are seeking to increase the penalties in the way that we suggested we need to do in accordance with the seriousness of the case in question.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the noble Viscount for his explanation. I said when I moved the amendment that it was a probing amendment because we wanted to find out what was in the Government's mind in limiting this section of the Bill simply to paragraphs (o) and (g) in Section 33 of the Health and
1426
Safety at Work etc. Act. The Minister has explained what is in the Government's mind and I must emphasise that it was not our intention that this should be treated as a blanket set of provisions. I am interested in what he has said. We will look closely at what the noble Viscount has said and we might be able to come back with an amendment at Report stage, in view of the explanation that we have had. It seems to me, as my noble friend has already mentioned, that there are some provisions in Section 33 that qualify for the kinds of penalties envisaged in the Bill. Certainly some of these offences seem to us to be serious. My noble friend has dealt with them and I shall not go over them again, but we shall consider what has been said and see what further action we can take. We do not feel happy simply limiting this part of the Bill to the provisions of Section 33 paragraphs (o) and (g). We think that something else might possibly be done and we shall have another attempt on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill because, as has already been stated, we on this side of the Committee are not very happy about the narrow scope of the Bill. In our view, the Government have missed an opportunity to implement in full the recommendations made by Lord Cullen.
In drafting so narrow a Bill some important aspects of safety have been left out altogether, and that has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord McCarthy and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester: namely, the part played by the employers themselves. Lord Cullen repeatedly referred to the necessity of establishing what he called a safety culture, the kind of atmosphere and environment where cutting corners is simply not on the cards, and absolute priority is given to health and safety issues.
The necessity for this was established beyond doubt in the inquiry into the terrible Piper Alpha disaster. It is even more necessary in the kind of industry where there are inherent dangers and where the failure to produce the necessary cultural awareness involving everyone can have terrible and tragic results. Lord Cullen made it clear that the responsibility for the creation of a safety culture begins at the very top. Responsibility should clearly rest there. With this in view, we originally drafted amendments designed to pin down the responsibility and to ensure that the directors of a company, in the event of deaths or injuries occurring as a result of negligence, could be held personally accountable and even, in sufficiently serious circumstances, face charges of manslaughter.
I have to say that in view of the narrow scope of the Bill this amendment was not regarded as procedurally correct, and we were not able to proceed further with it. Therefore the only way in which we can again protest that the Bill has been too narrowly drawn is to oppose the Question that Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill.

1427
We believe that the clause should specifically state that where an offence has been committed by a body corporate there should be a presumption that it was attributable to the neglect by any director whose functions included responsibility for safety. We believe that it is necessary to pin down responsibility and to do so at the highest possible level. We wanted an opportunity to do that. I said earlier that because the Bill was so narrowly drawn we were unable to do so and we could not proceed with an amendment along the lines that I have indicated. That does not mean to say that we are at all happy about the situation. For that reason it seemed to us that the best way to express this unhappiness was to oppose the Question that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I believe that the discussion that we have just had on the proposed amendment went to the root of the purpose of this particular clause. I must say that I remain convinced that the approach adopted by the Government in this clause is the right one. Our position is that the level of penalties should reflect the seriousness of the offence. As I have said before, it is the responsibility of the courts to set the level of penalties within the framework defined by the Government. This clause helps to define that framework by making it clear which offences are considered to be the most serious. For example, a breach of the main general duties laid down in the Act in Sections 2 to 6 often indicates serious or long-term shortcomings in the way that health and safety is managed and operated in a company, rather than a one-off failure on the part of management.
As a result, these offences will attract a maximum fine of £20,000 in a magistrates' court—a level which is in line with the penalties for the most serious offences laid down in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Food Safety Act 1990. A breach of a prohibition or an improvement notice is the result of an employer deliberately flouting instructions given by an inspector, and that is particularly serious in the case of a prohibition notice which will have been issued immediately to stop something which has the potential to cause serious injury. In those cases the option of imprisonment is considered appropriate. Of course if magistrates consider that the penalties available to them are insufficient they are free to refer cases to the Crown Courts, where unlimited fines are available and imprisonment is also available for the most serious offences.
The Government take a very serious view of those who commit health and safety offences. This clause takes an important step in demonstrating that view and I hope that your Lordships will accept my assurances on this and will therefore feel able to accept this important clause as part of the Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Again, I thank the Minister for what he has said. I have particularly noted his reference to the freedom of magistrates to refer cases to the Crown Court if they felt that very serious cases were involved. Nevertheless, I still feel
1428
rather strongly that the Bill does not adequately reflect the recommendations of Lord Cullen. We still feel very strongly about that on this side of the Committee. As I said earlier, the object of opposing Clause 4 was to give us the opportunity of expressing on the Floor of the Committee our general dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have proceeded in this matter. It is not my intention to press this to a vote because, as the Committee will know, we support what is on the face of the Bill. Our main contention is that it does not go nearly far enough and therefore does not do the job that we originally hoped it would. which was to give effect in full to the recommendations of Lord Cullen. However, having said that, my noble friends and I do not wish to take this further.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Disqualification of Directors
There shall be added to section 2(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the words—
"or where he is convicted of such an offence under Part I of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 or the Offshore Oil Act 1991".").
The noble Baroness said: When the Bill was debated on Second Reading I commented that, while the directors of a company could be disqualified from holding office if found guilty of a fiduciary misdemeanour, that sanction would not be applied if the company of which they were directors was guilty of negligence or breach of regulations and if such negligence or breach led to the death or injury of employees or members of the public. The Minister replied that that could indeed be done already under existing law, and he has indicated how that could be done again this afternoon. He has said that if a person is guilty of a criminal offence he or she can be disqualified. However, I cannot recollect that this has ever been done in a case where there has been a serious accident attributable to negligence. The Minister may have some knowledge of it but I certainly have not. I still take the view that it would be quite a powerful disincentive given that other sanctions are not available to us under the Bill.
We have been told that the Bill, concerned as it is with offshore safety, is a technical Bill and therefore anything touching upon employee protection cannot be included. I believe that is extremely odd bearing in mind that safety is of itself largely about employee protection in that employees are the people mostly and continuously at risk.
However, when it comes to penalties it is possible to do something even within the confines of this narrow Bill. Increasing the fines to £20,000 is not that much of a penalty for a multi-million-pound company. It is true that prison sentences are allowed for under the Bill, but they may not involve those at the top of the company who have responsibility for its general policies and the particular company philosophy which will carry on down through the company. As Lord Cullen made very clear, a safety culture starts at the top. I believe that it should be clearly stated in the Bill that there is a possibility of disqualification of

1429
directors as part of a penalty. That would introduce a measure of personal accountability at the very top of the company. In some respects that is even more important than increasing the financial penalty. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider this as a possibility.
Viscount Ullswater: The Government cannot support the amendment. In a moment I shall indicate not only why they cannot support it, but why they think it is unnecessary. First, I should like to correct the impression that I believe the noble Baroness gave the Committee a moment ago that the £20,000 fine was in some way a maximum fine for the most serious categories of offence. When talking of Clause 4 I have sought to indicate that if cases are referred to the Crown Court that court will have the ability to impose unlimited fines for particularly serious offences. It would be wrong for the noble Baroness to go away with the belief that the £20,000 fine was the maximum.
To return to the particular amendment, the main reason why the Government oppose the amendment is that they believe it is unnecessary or perhaps even counter-productive. It is unnecessary because in our view Section 2 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is capable of applying to health and safety matters. That Act provides for the court to make a disqualification order against a person convicted of an indictable offence connected with the promotion, formation, management or liquidation of a company. We believe that the potential scope of Section 2(1) of that Act is very broad and that "management" includes the management of health and safety. However, I should point out that in practice those powers are unlikely to have much effect on improving health and safety standards, largely because the opportunity for using the disqualification option has been and will always be very limited.
It is one of the strengths of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act that it defines offences in broad terms and imposes inescapable duties on employers. That said and despite the best endeavours of the Health and Safety Executive, it will always be relatively difficult to prove health and safety charges against individual directors, and because of those difficulties there will always be fewer successful convictions of individuals compared with those against companies. Added to that, in some of those cases where a successful conviction has been obtained against an individual director the court may decide that disqualification would serve no useful purpose.
Finally, I mentioned our view that the amendment could be counter-productive. By that I meant that the proposed text could have the effect of narrowing the scope of Section 2(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 which currently we can construe very broadly. There is a danger that in seeking to define the circumstances in which Section 2(1) applies, the courts will interpret the section as applying only to those specified circumstances and none other. I am sure that that is not what the noble Baroness intends. Therefore, I hope that, bearing in mind what I have said, she will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government's point of view on the amendment and also note what he says about £20,000 not being the maximum. We were anxious to write in somewhere on the face of the Bill an element of personal accountability, and we felt that unless we saw something like that in the Bill it would not be sufficiently apparent from the text. The Government say that they believe the amendment to be unnecessary and that the text we propose could result in limiting the scope of the current powers under the Company Disqualification Act. Of course we would not like to do that. What we want to do is take the amendment away and think about it again. We are very anxious to get an element of personal accountability written into the clause dealing with penalties. That might prove rather difficult, but as the Bill now stands we believe that it does not have the necessary accountability which ought to be there.
Having said that, I propose to withdraw the amendment at this stage and we will look at it again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Directions for preserving security of petroleum and petroleum products]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert ("consistent with the health and safety of persons employed or working at those places of work.").
The noble Lord said: The object of this amendment is twofold. First, in some ways it is a probing amendment because we want the Government to tell us the intention, meaning and need behind Clause 5 which at present is not absolutely clear to us. Secondly, the amendment is designed to reassure and underpin because the words of the amendment suggest that the provisions of Clause 5 should be,
"consistent with the health and safety of persons employed or working at those places of work".
In other words, if the provisions of Clause 5 are to stand they should not operate in such a way that they undermine the basic objectives of the Bill which are to secure the health and safety of persons employed or working in those places of work.
On the face of the Bill, the Government provide us in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum with an explanation of the reasons for Clause 5. It transpires that the clause is about security. It enables the Secretary of State after consultation to give directions to operators of offshore installations, terminals and so on for the purpose of preserving their security, which I take to mean the security of the operators. It will require those operators to comply with such directions notwithstanding other duties imposed upon them; in other words, the inference is that if what is demanded from the point of view of security sets at risk what is required for the health and safety of persons employed or working at those places of work it will be expected that operators will not have regard to problems of health and safety but will make as their primary concern problems of security.
The explanatory memorandum tells us that the Secretary of State will lay any such directions before both Houses of Parliament unless in his opinion

1431
disclosure will be against the interests of national security. We are not talking about the security of the operators or the employers; we are now talking about national security. The memorandum goes on to talk about the "commercial interest of any individual". So, all of a sudden, the concern is for individuals. Sometimes it is the nation, sometimes the operator and sometimes the individual, but in all circumstances, in the interests of the security of all those different groups, it appears to me that one can set aside the health and safety of persons employed or working at those places of work.
In the Second Reading debate the Minister told us a little more about what the Government want Clause 5 for and what might happen. He said at col. 663 of Hansard for 14th November:
"Directions could be general or specific … General directions might reflect a warning that the industry faced a particular threat";
We wonder what kind of threat that is,
"or they might address some widespread shortcoming"—
A shortcoming is not a threat or need not be a threat—
"which had been brought to light".
Brought to light by whom?
"Specific directions might be given to an individual operator if the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that there were particular shortcomings in security measures at the site which needed to be rectified … Arrangements already exist to give advice to operators on the measures necessary to protect the site adequately".
So we are not quite certain what it is needed for.
"I hope that your Lordships will understand if I do not go into too much detail on what those arrangements or measures may be".
We confess that we are now totally and utterly confused. What is this security that has to be protected? We are told that it is done in other circumstances; that it is done in telecommunications, electricity, water. That leads us to ask a number of questions. For example, in the first place, what are these insecurities that are regularly uncovered in telecommunications, electricity and water that require those provisions in the Bills? What are the other duties that have to be overridden in those cases? Has it involved health and safety? What are the concrete circumstances where the content of such a direction and even its existence cannot be laid before Parliament because to do so would prejudice "national security"—which is a very high minded thing—or "commercial interests"—which is not necessarily quite such a high minded thing.
What can this regulation be that preserves security? In any case, why should it set aside the basic purpose of the Bill? Our amendment seeks to ensure that it does not do so. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Rochester: I have put my name to this amendment and I support it. I have little to add to what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said; but I have approached the matter in a rather different way from him. This is how I see it. It may be said that it is self-evident that the Secretary of State should give directions for preserving the security of petroleum and petroleum products. That is how this section of the
1432
Bill is headed. But he may do that only in so far as the directions are consistent with the health and safety of the employees who are affected.
In paragraph 18.47 of the Cullen Report under the heading "Organising for safety", Lord Cullen says:
"To ensure that the safety philosophy becomes a tangible safety programme there must be defined organisational responsibilities for safety; and each part of the organisation has to be set and held accountable for safety objectives … safety has to be a prime objective of on-going operations".
In my view, the Government should not be immune from the primacy of that objective. Their organisational responsibility for health and safety should accordingly be made evident on the face of the Bill by means of words such as those proposed in the amendment.
It may be that the precise way in which this responsibility should be included in Clause 5 could be improved on. I hold no brief for the amendment's wording and perhaps neither does the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. However, its underlying principle is clear and I support it.
Viscount Ullswater: By and large, security measures at oil and gas installations on and offshore are fully adequate. The Government share the credit for this with the industry because under existing arrangements operators receive advice on security measures from government specialists. However, the Government can at present only advise; they cannot insist that operators follow the advice which is given. Individual operators respond as they see fit. This has not given rise to a serious or widespread concern about security. As I said, standards are generally adequate; but under the circumstances it would be surprising if standards did not vary between sites so that some were very good while at others there was room for improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me what kind of security features we were considering. I do not wish to go into too much detail, but with, for example, the erection of security fences there could be a perceived threat. The removal of car parks beside certain key buildings could be considered to be a security precaution, not only for the security of supply but also for the security of those people working on the site.
It would be right to say that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 5 require the Secretary of State to consult with the Health and Safety Executive before issuing any direction—because that is what the clause does—in the interests of security. Before giving its view, the Executive will consider whether the security recommendations might in any way affect health and safety measures at the site. The Secretary of State would not in practice issue directions unless he was satisfied that they would not prejudice health and safety.
This safeguard is itself a second line of defence because when the security advisers inspect the sites, they too are required to have regard to any health and safety implications arising from their proposals. There is ample opportunity for such matters to be raised in discussions with the operating company before the advisers formally report their recommendations.
I believe that the noble Lord sees something in this which is not there and that recommendations would be made or would be considered which would put at

1433
risk the health and safety of those working on the site. It is not only for the security of the supply itself but for the health and safety of those working on the site that this consultation exercise should take place. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: I suppose that reply is what one calls the unnecessary reply. It is not that it is a bad amendment, but that it is happening already. The trouble with such a reply is that it does not leave us with any reason why it should not be put on the face of the Bill in order to reassure people. The Minister tells us that on the whole there are not many problems. He says that security is normally, usually, fully adequate. But he says—and I thank him for this and I am beginning to see what the clause is about—"The problem is that we can't do more than advise; sometimes we want to compel". I say, "Yes, all right, fair enough. Let us suggest that the Government are quite justified in having a clause of this kind in the Bill. What is now unclear is clear. But what has it to do with safety?" I have asked for examples. I may have missed them because it is five o'clock in the afternoon; but I heard two. It is more mystifying than ever.
The Minister gave me a list: the erection of fences. I cannot see how the erection of a fence for the sake of security has much to do with safety. He mentioned the removal of car parks, and I suppose one might trip over a notice. But the examples he gave me reinforced my view that there is no earthly reason why the Government should not accept our amendment. Then the Minister said, "Of course, you don't need the amendment because I happen to know that there are all kinds of people, including inspectors who have been given instructions that whatever they do as regards security, they must not in any way infringe the fundamental health and safety purposes of the Bill". That may well be true, in which case why can it not appear on the face of the Bill? We think our proposal is eminently reasonable and we shall divide the Committee on it.
Viscount Ullswater: Before the noble Lord takes that action, I wish to make a few more comments in the hope of persuading him not to do so. I should explain that it may be decided to move car parks away from key buildings to remove a known specific threat from a terrorist organisation. Such action would remove the risk of a bomb being planted near to a key site. Such action is very much in the health and safety interests of those working on the site.
In practice the amendment could cause problems. Given the matter at issue, it is highly desirable that once a direction has been issued it should be clear and authoritative. The amendment would give rise to the possibility of arguments over interpretation. Those may be seized by a recalcitrant operator to delay implementation of a direction.
The amendment could have the effect of exposing directions to challenge in the courts on the grounds that they were inconsistent with health and safety. Such a situation could be undesirable and could give a reluctant operator a further opportunity to cause
1434
difficulties. I hope the noble Lord has listened carefully to those additional remarks and that he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: The Minister digs a bigger and bigger pit for himself. He now says there may be a conflict in this matter although he does not put forward a concrete case. The example he suggested of car parks and terrorists does not constitute a concrete case. The Minister has said there may be cases where it would be desirable to make directions for security reasons but that such directions could lead to a challenge in the courts on the grounds of health and safety. That is a totally different argument to the argument the Minister used before. If he is saying there is a conflict here, I am more determined than ever that our provision should appear on the face of the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not wish to intervene too many times. I merely wish to point out that there can be two areas where directives need to be imposed. One of those areas may concern purely security matters to prevent terrorism and sabotage. The other area where directives need to be imposed may concern purely health and safety matters. If directives need to be imposed to prevent terrorism, the Health and Safety Executive will be fully consulted on the implications of imposing them.
Lord McCarthy: We now appear to be reverting to the first argument the Minister used. Whichever argument is used, my answer is the same. We shall divide the Committee.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 86.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Airedale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Ardwick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hughes, L.

Birk, B.

Jay, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kagan, L.

Carter, L.

Kennet, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Desai, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Falkender, B.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Rea, L.

Hampton, L.

Richard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell, E.

1435

Seear, B.

White, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Willis, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Underhill, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Howe, E.

Aldington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Astor, V.

Knollys, V.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Balfour, E.

Liverpool, E.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Birdwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterfield, L.

Middleton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Morris, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Cockfield, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Coleraine, L.

Onslow, E.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pennock, L.

Denham, L.

Pym, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Renwick, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Salisbury, M.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Savile, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Harvington, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haslam, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Hives, L.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Innovation in Manufacturing Industry: Select Committee Report
5.21 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Innovation in Manufacturing Industry. (1st Report, Session 1990–91, H.L. Paper 18).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the investigation and report by the Select Committee on
1436
Science and Technology was prompted by the 1985 report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade. Paragraph 74 of that report reads:
"The Committee believe that manufacturing is vital to the prosperity of the country and that services, important as they are, are no substitute for manufacturing because they are too heavily dependent upon it, and only 20% are tradeable overseas. The Committee believe that expansion of the manufacturing base is the principal means of achieving growth".
In the six years since then there have been significant improvements in the productivity and profitability of manufacturing industry and an increase in output of some 12 per cent. In spite of those improvements the excess of imports over exports of manufactured products is now running at an annual rate of about£5½ billion, virtually the same as in 1985. However, there has been a marked reduction in the balance of payments deficit since the peak of £19½ billion in 1989, due mainly to lower home demand brought about by the recession.
While that is a most welcome improvement, it must be seen against the background of the far higher growth rates of our competitors which started from a much higher base. When the economy expands again the greater demand will suck in imports and once more we shall be in the old balance of payments difficulties with pressure on sterling unless manufacturing industry invests and expands its output much faster. The problem is clearly set out in paragraph 1.1 of the report.
In preparing the report the committee assumed the vital importance of a faster growing and prosperous manufacturing industry. That view, I am glad to say, has now been powerfully supported by the CBI's recent publication Competing with the World's Best. That report states:
"Either we return to the 'boom or bust' cycle which has plagued British manufacturers certainly since the Second World War, or we invest in our manufacturing base. There is no middle way, and no alternative to a national commitment to make manufacturing the success story of the 1990s".
Those are strong and encouraging words.
The Engineering Employers' Federation has also recently issued a report, entitled Action for Economic Growth, which gives further support to the CBI view. Therefore there is no need for me to argue that point further.
As the committee recognised, there are many factors which make industry more competitive. Innovation is one of the most important, for only through investment in innovation—both in product and in processes—can industry maintain its competitive edge. That is the only way of breaking the vicious circle described in paragraph 1.1 of the report, for the fact is that as soon as sales of a new product commence it is obsolescent.
The committee defined innovation in manufacturing industry as,
"the commercial application of knowledge or techniques in new ways or for new ends".
We did not therefore debate the need to stimulate invention or new ideas, important as they are, but rather their commercial application. We emphasise that innovation encompasses many disciplines as well

1437
as the efficient application of technology. It was on that aspect of innovation that the committee concentrated.
We also recognised that there is much more to technological innovation than research and development and that much successful innovation is of an incremental nature, of improving a product or a process, and also that it is not confined to high technology industry. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, said in his evidence:
"Innovation is indispensable in maintaining a successful business … if you do not change as the times, the markets and the products require, you are dead".
The report summarises the conclusive evidence that as a whole our manufacturing industry has not produced a sufficient volume of competitive products over a long period. As the Engineering Employers' Federation report says:
"The manufacturing sector is efficient but too small".
We have many top class companies which successfully sell a wide range of products in world markets. They have achieved that through, inter alia, wise investment in innovation. Our problem is that we need many more to follow their good example to create a bigger manufacturing base.
The committee therefore concentrated on identifying reasons why too many companies do not invest adequately in innovation. We sought to find ways of removing obstacles and promoting incentives. We took evidence from a wide cross-section of experienced people. We also visited Germany and Italy to gain first-hand knowledge of their practices, particularly regarding the support given to manufacturing industry and its relationship with financial institutions. The committee itself was also widely representative and not, as one commentator suggested, made up mainly of ancient, reactionary peers with an emotional, outmoded attachment to manufacturing.
I turn now to the principal recommendations which emerged from the evidence we received. I emphasise that those conclusions were not picked out of the air; they emerged from the evidence we received. The conclusions are set out in paragraph 9 of the report. In view of the time I shall mention only some of the most important of the recommendations.
The evidence confirmed the widely held view that antipathy to manufacturing industry runs deep in our society. We concluded that the most urgent need is for a change in our culture, a change in attitude towards manufacturing. Government can make a major contribution to stimulating that change and should give a clear and unambiguous lead towards that end. The report urges that Ministers must be heard to proclaim the vital significance of manufacturing industry to our national prosperity on every possible occasion. The DTI should be fully consulted on all aspects of government policy-making in so far as it might affect industry.
But industry's part in the campaign to change attitudes is at least as important. Young people deciding on a career must have evidence, and must perceive, that industry offers a challenging, interesting career, I financially rewarding and with opportunities for advancement as good as in any other field.
Industry's contacts with schools have markedly improved over the past decade, but much more needs to be done. Already many charities are working effectively in this field. But their impact is severely limited by lack of financial resources. We recommend in the report that Government should give financial support to this important educative work. I am sorry to say that that is one of the many recommendations that were turned down. I shall come to that point later.
Although the Government should provide a measure of selective support in this and in other ways, and must create the best climate for innovation, remove obstacles and create incentives, the main action is in industry. Therefore in paragraph 9.24 and onwards the report urges all companies to seek out and implement the best practice, emphasising that it is essential to cultivate a positive and enthusiastic attitude to innovation led by the chairman and chief executive, supported by the board. It is also important to embrace innovative developments from any source, whether within or outside the company, to meet the customers' needs.
The report emphasises too the importance of learning from competitors, and in particular urges British companies to look critically at the respective proportion of profits devoted to dividends and investment. It recommends that companies should pursue dividend policies more in line with those of Japan and Germany. To date in 1991 Germany and Japan have paid out about 30 per cent. of earnings in dividends compared with 70 per cent. in the UK. No wonder there is a shortage of financial resources to invest in innovation, particularly as we identified the high cost of capital as one massive disadvantage faced by British industry compared with our competitor countries. That, combined with the expectation by UK investors of high and relatively quick financial returns, discourages investment in innovation.
We therefore made recommendations to alleviate the problem by improving cash flow to provide more self-generated funds for investment. First, we recommend that 150 per cent. of expenditure on R&D should be exempt from corporation tax as described in paragraph 9.41. In the past such schemes have been opposed, perhaps laughed at, on the ground that experience elsewhere shows that they are ineffective. I was therefore interested to see during a recent visit to Australia that experience there indicates clearly that a tax allowance on those lines has been successful in stimulating investment. We also recommended in the report that companies should be allowed to choose for themselves the rate of depreciation against tax, but only for plant and machinery. Again, that recommendation was not accepted.
Although the report expresses great concern at the shortage of skilled manpower, without which investment in innovation cannot be successful, in view of the ACOST study on the problem we spent little time on it. However, we recommended in paragraphs 9.49 and 9.50 more favourable tax treatment of expenditure on training.
By contrast, the issue of "short termism" and its effect on investment in innovation was the subject of a spirited debate. We concluded that short termism is

1439
a real problem in that context and that the current over-emphasis on this year's achievements rather than the long-term prospects of a business is damaging to industry and therefore to the national economy.
The subject is fully covered in paragraphs 9.54 to 9.66 in which we urge companies to ensure that their own procedures, in particular incentive payment schemes, should not encourage a short-term outlook, and that financial institutions should improve their understanding of the workings of industry.
However, the most significant comment relates to takeovers. Paragraph 9.60 states:
"The proliferation of takeovers in the United Kingdom in the 1980s was a significant factor in creating short-term attitudes".
We noted that in Japan and Germany, where manufacturing industry is strong and efficient, and where a positive balance of overseas trade exists in manufactured products, opposed takeovers are virtually unknown. The evidence that we received in Germany and Italy clearly indicated that the argument often used in favour of takeovers—that the threat is an essential stimulus to good management —is without foundation.
We therefore welcomed the valuable work being done by the Innovation Advisory Board on the subject. But after considerable debate we concluded that effective action is urgently needed to discourage opposed takeover bids. Paragraph 9.63 recommends:
"Voting rights should be enjoyed only by those shareholders who have held their shares for at least a year".
I fully appreciate that that is a controversial and drastic proposal. It is an indication of the strength of feeling on the committee of the damage being done by excessive deal-driven activity. I shall be very interested to hear in the course of our debate any better proposals for dealing with that serious problem.
In paragraphs 9.67 to 9.86 the report makes a number of recommendations relating to government policy and action by the DTI. But those recommendations must be read in the light of paragraph 9.75 which states:
"Generally industry is best placed to assess its markets and make decisions about investment in innovation. But, as the DTI has said, industry alone may not always generate sufficient innovation for the national good".
I believe that the spirit of the report is well summarised in a concluding paragraph, paragraph 9.89, which states:
"Our recommendations will necessarily result in more Government interest and involvement in industry. While the mistakes of the past have caused these ideas to become unfashionable, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. All the evidence shows that the present lack of Government commitment, support and assistance is deeply damaging to industry and to our national interest. We are confident that the changes we recommend would contribute significantly to restoring a better balance between the two extremes of Government policy".
Since that was written there have been three significant developments—one bad and two good. The bad news is the Government's response to the Select Committee's report in Cm.1575. As in all such documents, there is an encouraging start. Paragraph 3 states:
1440
"The Government warmly welcomes the House of Lords Select Committee's report … the Committee's most valuable work is making an important contribution to changing attitudes".
So far so good, my Lords. However, the response then goes on to turn down every significant recommendation made in the Select Committee's report or ignores them. In some cases the reasoning is far from clear and too often misses the main point of the recommendation. For instance, in paragraph 23 of the response, the rejection of the proposal that companies should be allowed to choose the rate of depreciation of plant and machinery makes no mention of the effect on cash flow for investment, which is the stated objective.
The response seemed to me to be lacking in appreciation of the vital need for action now to promote greater investment in innovation and so to increase output. It shows no awareness of the magnitude of the task before us, in particular in rebuilding important industries which are no longer in the top league. Nor does it seem to appreciate the risks implicit in the necessary innovation.
I give one example. Can we really be satisfied when we produce less than 4 per cent. of the world's output of machine tools whereas West Germany produces 19 per cent. and Japan 23 per cent., observing that virtually everything that we use is either made directly by machine tools or by equipment made by them? The Government seem to believe that market forces must prevail and no support should therefore be given to such important industries. That is in marked contrast to Germany and Japan. It is also at variance with the logic which rightly provides financial inducement to inward investment. Why should similar support not be given to stimulate expansion and investment by British companies? And why is it that when market forces fail to attract adequate investment in housing, support is given through housing associations to provide it? Industry appears to be treated far less generously. The need is clear, for once again during the past week we have seen the German mark very strong with sterling under pressure. A principal reason for that is Germany's strong manufacturing base and its long-standing positive balance of overseas trade compared with our relatively weak position.
Perhaps I may conclude on a brighter note. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a series of stimulating speeches on the importance of innovation, which he clearly appreciates. But, alas, though his spirit is willing the flesh is weakened by his dogmatic views about reliance on market forces which hold back effective government support for manufacturing industry. Such support, as the report makes clear, is quite distinct from intervention or picking winners.
The second piece of good news is the CBI's recent report, Competing with the World's Best, to which I have already referred. At long last it brings manufacturing industry to the top of the CBI's agenda. It is an excellent document and there is much support in it for the views expressed in the Select Committee's report. The CBI states:
"By the year 2000 the UK must be a world-class provider of high-quality and cost-competitive products".
It further states that one of the conditions necessary to make that vision of the future become reality is,
"continuous innovation—to meet the requirements of world markets—in terms of technology, design and product developrnent".
We have moved a long way since the days of the early 1980s when it was confidently asserted that we were a service economy and that manufacturing was of little importance. But the wiser counsels that now prevail have not yet resulted in any effective action being taken to stimulate the massive increase in output which is a sine qua non for a strong economy. As was said by my noble friend Lord Vinson in our debate on the Qucen's Speech, we need a recovery strategy to ensure that growth does not rekindle reflation.
Recently, the Prime Minister, when addressing the Engineering Council, demonstrated his support for engineering and innovation. He said:
"We need to stay at the leading edge of innovation and technology if we are to achieve for this country what it expects of itself and what we wish to achieve".
That was a powerful and encouraging statement from the Prime Minister. However, that goal can be achieved only by greater investment in innovation. The vital question, to which I hope we shall receive a clear answer tonight, is whether these constructive thoughts are now to be followed up with effective action to stimulate investment and faster growth in manufacturing. Or do the Government still believe that market forces alone, if given free rein, will do the trick? I submit that action on the lines recommended in the 'Select Committee's report will make a good start on the road to lasting prosperity.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the members of the committee who worked hard and conscientiously for a long period. I wish to thank too our specialist advisers, Mr. Oscar Roith and Professor Roy Rothwell. Last but by no means least I wish to thank Miss Mary De Groose. our Clerk in the Committee Office. All contributed so much to preparing this very successful report. I commend it to your Lordships and beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Innovation in Manufacturing Industry. (1st Report, Session 1990–91, H.L. Paper 18).—(Viscount Caldecote.)
5.44 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Viscount in recommending the embracing of the report. I must first plead for your Lordships' indulgence. I have been informed that my wife has slipped in Cambridge and has a black eye—this is perhaps not for Hansard. It would be generous of your Lordships to allow me to withdraw to defend my reputation in that university town before it gets the wrong idea of how she got the black eye.
I wish to assure the noble Viscount that anyone who is involved with young people in this country—I am sorry that there has been such an exit from the Gallery—must wish to find a change of heart towards the reputation of industry in our society. My father manufactured motorcycles but my mother did not like that very much. For a variety of reasons I finally
1442
became a doctor. I am not sure whether, if I had stayed in engineering, I would have done as much or more for the country.
The three sentences that I have selected from the report are in its summary of conclusions and recommendations. I make no apology for leaping to that chapter and hope that all noble Lords will take the opportunity of reading the report. The paragraph states:
"Industry's failure to remain competitive has grave implications for our future prosperity… We must change the national attitudes which lead to the belief that manufacturing is a second class occupation… We must have a concerted campaign to promote greater esteem for manufacturing".
Sadly, I slipped out of engineering and entered medicine. I had been fascinated by medicine as a result of the British and international pharmaceutical industry. It is a good example of a highly innovative industry. That move arose by prescribing medicines and being involved in testing new medicines and substances as a research worker. For six years I was chairman of the Medicines Commission, which is the instrument whereby the Medicine Act is bound together. It is indirectly responsible for the maintenance, purity, safety and efficacy of the medicines that we have in this country. I have also been called upon as a consultant by some of our leading pharmaceutical firms. I was for a time chairman of the editorial committee of the Office of Health Economics, concerned with the publication of educational pamphlets.
I am anxious to encourage your Lordships to pay real respect to this remarkable industry. During my professional career it has been up and down. It was low after thalidomide but it has pulled itself up by its bootstraps and is now an industry of which we can be proud. It earns almost £1 billion per year as a positive addition to the balance of payments. It is an industry to which our young people leaving school can go in the expectation of having a clean, rather than dusty, existence and that they will be at the cutting edge of a great deal of science. The industry has many of its roots in our biomedical and scientific history. I shall throw back a glance to William Harvey and the circulation (we are all anxious about diseases of the circulation) and to the Reverend Hale who was the first man to measure blood pressure—and 10 per cent. of the western world is concerned with high blood pressure. More recently was Fleming who discovered penicillin and Chain and Florey who developed it during the war for use against gas gangrene. Since the war there has been Frederick Sanger who won two Nobel prizes for his work which opened up molecular biology. More recently, and rather dazzlingly, were Watson and Crick who worked out the form of the deoxyribonucleic acid molecule.
It is important that I convey to your Lordships the way in which those discoveries have become ingrained in our manufacturing life. My inquiries show that although in population terms we are not as large as the rest of Europe, Japan or the United States, we have almost a quarter of the patents of the present leading 50 worldwide medicines. Taking the more recent new chemical entities—as we call the new substances coming into the medical world—we are able to hold

1443
up our heads as 14 per cent. are British developments. Surely it must be clear that anything that we can do to maintain a healthy and thriving industry is bound to be helpful to our balance of payments.
We have an astonishing reputation because we have been able to test those products through the NHS. The fact that the NHS purchases them through the remarkable arrangement which the industry has—the pharmaceutical price regulatory committee—is widely seen overseas as a sign of clear, ethical development. We must do all we can to maintain that reputation for British fair play and striving for the best.
The present situation is that to launch a world product you probably need to salt about £100 million into the research and development to get it through all the tests and bring it forward onto the market. Because that is done in England, you would have the wonderful advantage of a post-marketing surveillance scheme, which is what all the animal rights people should talk about much more. That follows the first 1,000 or more people who are taking a new chemical entity through the medicine's first period of use. It uses the people who benefit from it. I do not wish to describe them as guinea pigs because that has the wrong connotation. However, it allows those people to show up any difficulties or side effects which have not already been picked up in the earlier work carried out with tissues, molecules and animals.
Those costs lead the industry to be extremely anxious that there should be reasonable profitability when something is up and running because those pounds produce the innovatory laboratories which are to be found everywhere.
I remind your Lordships that it is essential that all vice-chancellors and professors should support industry in their universities and polytechnics. About 200,000 young people in 1980 were qualified to study science at university and about 40,000 were so qualified to study at the polytechnics. Whenever the Department of Education and Science cuts back on the potential for developing those young people into first class scientific and technological workers it is indirectly harming the innovative skills of the country.
Today the Cross-Benchers had a remarkable presentation by Helen Sharman who came from Sheffield, where she is a chemist at the university, to tell us about being Britain's first astronaut, or spaceperson. Earlier she was sitting below the Bar. She is a marvellous girl and a great credit to the young women of this country. What did she do while she was in space for eight days? She grew crystals. Why did she do that? She did that because there are no convection currents if there is no movement of the air and it is possible to grow crystals more quickly and more satisfactorily in space than on earth. She grew some biological crystals.
I ask the noble Viscount whether he thinks it is dreadful that that girl acknowledged to us at about 2.40 p.m. that no one has invited her to a government office, or any office, to debrief her on what she had done. I do not know what it cost her to grow crystals in space, but if one has an idea about a problem such as alzheimer's disease or rheumatism, one will wish to
1444
grow a crystal of that part of the body for which one has to find a compound to match and to work on. Growing crystals is difficult and unreliable, but Helen Sharman has found a quick way to grow them.
To the noble Viscount and to the other committee members I say that this is a wonderful, holistic report. I hope that it sets the country on fire.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I am proud to take part in the debate and as I shall show later, I illustrate my support for my noble friend Lord Caldecote. Before I do that, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield—outside the House he is a noble friend but he is not allowed to be that inside it—that I am sure that the House will understand if he leaves immediately. I certainly understand. The noble Lord's courtesy to me throughout our association at the Leeds Castle Foundation and otherwise has been such that I shall not mind and will well understand if he leaves at once. He carries with him a message from myself and, I am sure, all noble Lords to his wife that we hope she gets well quickly and does not suffer pain.
We heard some wise words from the leader of the medicos. We should remember what he said about the importance of manufacturing industry. He spoke of the success of the pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, it is a global success. He spoke of the support of universities and polytechnics for industry and the links between them. The report said something about that and so shall I, if time permits.
The report on which I have already congratulated my noble friend is most influential. It is full of thoughts and recommendations of long term significance for the British economy and for the future of our manufacturing industry. My noble friend introduced the report in what I thought was an exemplary and very lucid speech. I thank him for that.
I add a few remarks which I believe your Lordships will understand. The report is beautifully laid out and is easy to read. It contains many tables to illustrate the arguments and gives value to students of our economy. When we read Select Committee reports, we should remember that we need to congratulate the chairman, the committee and the clerk. The system of Select Committees has grown over the years. It is extremely valuable to our House. It brings together noble Lords whose skill and experience is not surpassed. Together they are able to bring out the evidence better than most, to consider the implications of the evidence and to submit first class reports which are widely read outside as well as inside the House. They are read by industrialists, bankers, investors, academics and all those engaged in government. I use this opportunity to express my hope that no one will promote any reform of our Select Committee system which will prevent or crab such inquiries.
I have read, as has my noble friend, the Government's reply with interest. I am not as discouraged as he is. Perhaps that is because of my recollection of the Government's reply to the 1985 report. However, like my noble friend I was encouraged greatly by reading the speeches of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for

1445
Trade and Industry. He has made a number of speeches on this and related subjects. I am pleased about what he said. I am encouraged also by the additional funding forecast for purposes related to innovation and the success of industry.
I am not as dismayed as my noble friend is, but, as I have said, that may be because of earlier experiences. Like him, I attach importance to the report of the CBI's manufacturing advice group whose conclusions lie harmoniously with the report and that earlier report, about which I see the noble Lord, Lord Williams, nodding.
Like others of your Lordships, I have never had any doubt about the importance of innovation. I agree, incidentally, with my noble friend, that innovation is more than just research and development. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, which are quoted in the report are not new to me, because I have watched him put into practice the thoughts that he expressin there. It may well be that the main reason why our manufacturing base, efficient as it is, is now so much smaller than it needs to be to match the demand for manufactured goods in Britain is that we have had too little innovation and too few innovators.
I shall mention only a few of the report's opinions and recommendations. That does not mean that I do not value them all; I do. First, the paragraphs on national attitudes echo and bring up to date the theme of the 1985 overseas trade report. It continues to puzzle me why the people of Britain as a whole do not realise, hat manufacturing industry is vital to their well-being. The report rightly says that campaigns which were going on at the time of our inquiry—one was started after it—have been ineffective. As a result, even greater effort is needed now. Powerful voices that treated the 1985 report as special pleading are either not heard any more or are not so powerful. I prefer what Ministers are saying today about the importance of manufacturing.
Of the many good things that the report says about industry's role, I want to draw attention to two. Both were mentioned by my noble friend. The first relates to learning, from our competitors overseas and at home. I regard that as important. The second is the value of companies working in partnership with their suppliers and customers. Noble Lords may remember that my noble friend Lord Sieff gave us examples in 1985 of how that partnership had benefited Marks and Spencer and had replaced imports with home produced goods. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, today referred to the partnership between the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS.
That is a valuable lesson for all to learn. It is one that was not learnt by the machine tool industry which may explain why it dwindled so much. If it learns it now, that may lead to its recovery.
Short-termism is explained in a well balanced manner on pages 26 and 27. The key must be mutual understanding by financiers and manufacturers of the need for long-term investment in plant and in research and development. They must understand why investment is proposed, why it is not, and what will happen if it is not proposed. The problem of excessive
1446
takeovers is better solved by achieving an understanding between financiers and manufacturers than by Government taking more dramatic powers. There I may not be in full agreement with other noble Lords.
The report contains important recommendations on research councils and education into which I shall not go. I know just enough about those topics to realise that I do not know enough to talk about them to your Lordships.
I come now to the DTI's support for innovation and industry. Even at the height of the rhetoric regarding that support, it was always more than was consistent with the market forces only philosophy; but is it enough? It is here that I commend to the Government the lesson given to industry about studying what our competitors do.
The report contains some startling figures about the aid given to industry one way or another by our European competitors. Those figures are to be found in paragraph 7.5. Not all such aids come under the powerful axe of Sir Leon Brittan in the Community. I must remind your Lordships of what the Community is doing with its programmes. It is important. The committee had some comments to make about the support offered by the Community. I believe that the Government accept the recommendation on that point, and I am delighted. However, they are not the recommendations which involve the payment of money, and I believe that that is the key. The report refers to the procedures carried out in Brussels and to the failure of manufacturers in Britain to understand what is on offer to them. We must help Brussels improve procedures and help ourselves by understanding what is available.
The report calls attention to the additionality factor in Community grants. We have had long arguments on that subject. I note that the committee does not go into it other than to mention the attributive rule of the Government. I understand that it is right that any government should wish to have overall control over public expenditure. If they have anticipated receipts from the Community in their expenditure plans, it is right that they do not seek further additionality. They have done it once. I have a feeling that that is not always understood, which is why there are sometimes complaints.
I shall now refer to the importance of doing something to expand our manufacturing base. Doing something does not mean that the Government should throw money about. Industrialists are the only people who can expand our manufacturing base. The only way that it can be done is by increasing the number of innovators, and that is what the report is about. To help innovators to expand it is important that the Government should play a part, with the rest of the nation, in encouraging a greater understanding of the importance of manufacturing. Why must we expand the base? It is for the reason given by my noble friend which is set out in the report and which is discussed over and over again in the House. So long as our manufacturing base is too small—smaller than the demand for manufacturing goods in Britain—so long

1447
we shall have a deficit on our balance of trade in manufacturing goods and a deficit in our current account.
I share my noble friend's view of the importance of market forces and the danger of innovation and over-regulation by government. But there are times when market forces should be helped, not by government intervention but by government support. It is that line which has been taken by our competitors; it is that line which has been taken in Germany; it is that line which has been taken in France and it is that line which has been taken in Italy where things are a little different. But we should not neglect the success of those countries, particularly Italy, through their manufacturing industry. The gross national product per person of Italy is very nearly as great as ours despite the fact that a large chunk of south Italy is a poor producer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is bigger than ours.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, the noble Lord says that it is bigger, but I am satisfied that the latest figures do not support that although it does not matter to my point which I make with as much power as I can. That is why it is important to look at what our competitors do. I have made the case for the importance of manufacturing industry to our economic future. I commend to your Lordships the closing words of the paragraph in the report which refers to expenditure by government. It states:
"The expenditure (by Government) involved should be regarded as a sound investment by Government in the future prosperity of the United Kingdom on behalf of us all and not as a cost to be reduced to a minimum".
That is good advice to the Government but also good advice for us all, for manufacturing companies, research bodies, individuals and companies. I thank my noble friend for the report.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, six months ago I knew very little of the workings of your Lordships' House, but as an outsider I had always admired the excellence of the reports produced by your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology. Once a subject had been for examination then as sure as night follows day, a whole new raft of information emerged and was of enormous value. The report that we are discussing today on innovation in manufacturing chaired by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, serves to confirm this view of excellence. As someone utterly committed to the cause of a manufacturing base for this country and as a director of manufacturing companies, I believe that we are indeed most fortunate that my noble friend and his colleagues chose to examine this issue and did so to such depth.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Aldington about the readability of the report. I found it fascinating. I wonder whether perhaps, with a different cover and title, it could become a bestseller because it deserves to be.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, it is Crown copyright.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the report indicates, there is much to do by all involved. The speed of change makes it even more urgent and difficult. Once a company could expect at least a three months' lead from an innovative edge—that is to say, the minimum time that it would take for a competitor to tool up. Now it is days. That was brought home to me most graphically by a French car designer. He went out to do some work in Tokyo, instructed the design and said, "I'm going off to be a tourist. I shall see you in four days when the model is ready". It was pointed out to him that it would be ready the next morning.
I cannot agree with my noble friend's suggestion that the Government should be blamed for the loss of our market share in the machine tool industry. We were there and we lost it. Should we suggest that we actually reward failure with more funds? I agree that the loss of the machine tool market share is crucial. I was pleased to see that your Lordships included marketing in the innovative process. Too often it has been neglected and an advantage lost. The report calls for more technical skills in the financial services area. I would extend that to require much greater linking of literacy and numeracy. Too often our education system seems to produce people who can write or those who can count. Yet as your Lordships know, the innovative process is seamless between the two.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has himself acknowledged that BS 5750 is not an attention-grabbing name for an ethos of quality which is essential in uplifting our manufacturing. Nor does the frequent use of initials by government departments in that area inspire confidence. I have frequently heard requests for explanation of "EDTEED" answered by "Well, it was the training agency". The training agency did not need explaining. Perhaps we could use initials less frequently because it would make matters easier.
The report identifies that the Government initiatives that already exist could be used more extensively to bring additional resource to the marketing area. It would be an ideal opportunity for the private sector secondees as your Lordships suggest. Those secondees, both ways—though I understand the department's fears that often people who go out stay out—are very important. Industry and government do not yet understand each other. The Cabinet Office's top management course of 24 people (50–50 divided between the private and public sector) is excellent. It would have to be to attract the attendance of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. But it consists of 24 people and it is held only three times a year.
I have seen chairmen of very successful companies become excessively nervous at the prospect of meeting a parliamentary under-secretary whose specialist knowledge of a subject must by definition be less than theirs. The reason for that is a lack of understanding of each role. There must be greater exchanges. In that area it seems that the French are ahead of us. The need for industry, and most of all manufacturing industry, to be better understood, particularly by young people,

1449
is rightly identified as crucial to our future. Therefore, it is very good to read evidence from Sir John Harvey-Jones, the one man who more than anyone else has singlehandedly made the business culture look as exciting as it is.
Very little can make the adrenalin flow as fast as closing a successful sales deal or finding your working capital 50 per cent. over the limit. Sir John's BBC2 series was a masterpiece and an example of what can and must be done again. The responsible media played a considerable role in supporting competition in the innovation area. Schemes such as the Engineering Council's "Young Engineer of Britain" and organisations such as Understanding Industry, are growing steadily without heavy resources being thrown at them. They show that children can he fired up. I still recall a school visit to Rover when I worked there. At the end of a very constructive visit the teacher was heard to say, "And this is where you will end up if you do not do your homework". I hope that things are changing.
Industry Year should have been a start and not a project. We have lost five years; indeed, we have given them away. In innovation in larger corporations the garden shed is important. It is important for innovation to thrive; it must get away from the large company corporate culture. It was interesting to watch General Motors trying to handle that. It moved its Saturn project down south away from Michigan and then wondered why it was not working until it discovered that everyone got on the plane on Friday night and returned to Detroit and picked up the culture. The process had to start all over again. Eventually that state of affairs was changed.
On a visit this morning to British Nuclear Fuels in Preston, where I am a director, I was pleased to find one of our own garden shed-based projects, though I hasten to assure noble Lords that it was in fairly high-class buildings. The unique position of BNFL as the only British-owned company with elemental fluorine production capability had been identified. A significant growing market opportunity for fluorine chemicals was identified. There were also opportunities that would reduce the UK's dependence on imports and generate export earnings from bottled fluorine. The initiative has support already with bridgeheads in two British universities; namely, Leicester and Durham. They are setting up centres of excellence. It is highly profitable and brings high added value products. In its own area it has great opportunities, separately managed and moved out from the main culture. In large corporations senior management must give a loose rein and time if innovation is to thrive.
My noble friend's report draws attention to the importance of non-executive directors who are their own men and women. They can be a source of encouragement, wisdom and focus, and ensure that those appointed know the role that they must play is important to the long-term view which will make innovation possible. The executive directors are often much too close to the wood to see the forest never mind the view over the hill.
1450
It is to be hoped that financial institutions will begin to look more closely at the quality of non-executive directors and, indeed, overall management. Now is not the time for government to give more money to industries. They must search for real managements of "A-team" quality to achieve value for money. It would be better if the DTI helped market forces a little and asked one or two of the major institutional shareholders to check the quality of the management of their investments. If senior people need to be changed then they must force the changes. The messages of the report will only be instigated by the best management. Such DTI city conversations will do much to reduce the dreaded short-termism, and institutions and companies will come closer together in the manner which my noble friend Lord Caldecote must know so well from investors in industry.
By focusing attention on the sectors which will bring most national benefit, the DTI will not be asked to pick winners —which the report rejects. However, it will have influence without causing Brussels too much anxiety, although all of us with an interest in today's subject must be anxious about what will happen in the competition area in Europe when the current commissioner's term of office comes to an end.
At this point I should add that in criticising short-termism, industry must be conscious of the number of times it asks its own pension managers to drive through on short-term objectives. Again I argue that extra funding is not the easy answer. It may be seen by drawing a comparison between those industries with a chemistry base—pharmaceutical companies and parts of the large oil companies—that many medium-sized companies have become world-class practitioners, while those with physics and engineering bases coming from nationalised areas and supplying government contracts have on the whole missed the opportunity of becoming world-class players.
It would be unwise not to accept the needs identified in the report. But I hope that no further short-term projects on innovation will be launched. I understand that there are already over 100, and all below critical mass. Much better that existing best practice is spread from large companies to medium-sized companies to make them world class and that overseas experience is shared with medium-sized companies.
I watched Cad Cam put in by large companies to their smaller suppliers uplift the quality levels in quantum leaps. There are 73 factories in the UK employing over 2,000 people; double that number employing between 1,000 and 2,000, and 3,300 with 100 to 500 employees. As the report identifies, the medium companies could change the world.
I have not mentioned education. Others with much greater knowledge than I will do so. However, I must praise the effectiveness of one area of the German intermediate institutions which, although operated by government, allow young graduates to qualify for a PhD or other higher degree while on a five-year contract working on five- to 10-year research programmes funded and driven by industry. Those

1451
young people then take their intellect into industry. For me the best form of technology transfer is in a person's brain. We must improve intellect in British industry; that is the answer: not perpetuating the mediocre with more funds.
I hope that today's debate will bring added value to this splendid report and increase awareness of the importance of manufacturing innovations. I hope that it will extend thoughts on innovation to other areas as a pathway to success. I hope that the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, is quickly recovered but I am sure that she was as pleased as many others were that the first British person into space was a woman. I am now proudly a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee. It is a privilege that I value.
6.26 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I too must apologise to the House as I may not be in my place when the debate concludes. I must meet potential overseas customers for my company.
I am sure that the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Caldecote and his committee for initiating this debate on a subject of great interest to all Members of your Lordships' House. The high calibre of the committee and deeply relevant experience of so many of the industrial witnesses made the report riveting reading from cover to cover. For many months to come the well presented data within the report's appendices will prove an invaluable source to those of us who work within British manufacturing industry.
I was heartened by the emphasis that the report gives to market-led innovation. For most of the past 20 years or so my own time has been taken up in promoting the sale of British manufactured goods in the export markets of the world. Let me make two points from the viewpoint of the exporter.
First, it is enormously encouraging when one returns from an overseas visit with new intelligence regarding the perceived needs of the customer to be listened to by the board and to see resources deployed quickly and responsibly towards fulfilling that requirement. In making that point, I draw your Lordships' attention to the words of Sir Geoffrey Allen who not only emphasised the need for market-led innovation but also highlighted the importance of a proper business plan. Good innovation will yield improved profitability and better overall results for both the innovating company and the end user. A little time spent in quantifying both, before plunging too deeply into an investment which may in time be heavy, is essential.
My second point—again from the point of view of the exporter—concerns the importance of technical salesmanship. The report correctly emphasises the critical importance of trained manpower. Nowhere is that more important than at the sharp end—the customer interface. Too often have I seen a new idea undersold because the negotiating representative had not grasped its true significance or was too obsessed
1452
by the cleverness of the technical solution to emphasise the tangible benefits that the product could offer to the business needs of the end user.
Some years ago I was involved in the presentation of a novel technical solution to the problem of handling containerised loads in the Port of Bombay. It was all too easy to present the technical merits of the solution; it was not until the chief engineer of the port realised that by investing some of his scarce resources in the new technology he would significantly improve the productivity and throughput of that port. It was then that I began to make progress. How much easier it is to sell a product that has a really unique selling feature than just a "me too" product.
The report deals at length with the need to create the right environment for change, on the need for improved supplier relationships and on the problems that a cultural disdain for engineering and manufacturing industry presents to British industrialists. There is one graph in the report which I believe is well worth attention. That is the one which forecasts the routes of students for the year 1990. The graph shows that only 15 per cent. of students were interested in the manufacturing industries, whereas approximately 32 per cent. of those students were interested in the world of media.
The path of manufacturing and engineering was, and to quite a large extent still is, perceived as a difficult, uncomfortable route perhaps laden in the past with strikes, protests and to a certain extent the "dark Satanic mills" syndrome. That is not an alluring prospect. There is little sense of eagerness, understanding, fascination and pride promulgated by the media. The media have a responsibility to manufacturing.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I make rather a parochial point about Scotland. In Scotland, the thirst for engineering knowledge has always seemed more acceptable than south of the Border. That legendary figure, the Scottish engineer, used to be found in all corners of the globe making the new technologies happen—indeed, it was not so long ago that I met one at the very bottom of Chile running a specialist lighthouse unit. But why is that? It comes in part from a deep respect for the education process and from a special understanding of the value of trained manpower. That has engendered a real understanding for the need for and the value of change, which lead to greater flexibility and the willingness to work at it.
Having said that, I have to say that I think the report is a little harsh in the way that it deals with the very real changes that have occurred within British industry during the past decade. For the past four years, I have been deeply involved in introducing the concept of total quality management into the company for which I work and also into a number of the supplier companies. It is quite remarkable what a little dedication from the top can achieve in a relatively short time. By listening to and involving all members of an industrial team one can quickly realise and release enthusiasms that have been pent up for years. Naturally that leads to a more flexible approach and to a very real change in attitudes. I believe that that augurs well for the future.

1453
There are so many relevant parts of the report that one is spoilt for choice in those that can be highlighted in a short debate. However, one passage which struck home forcibly to me was the emphasis on the need to learn from others. Perhaps we in British industry have been a 'little too arrogant in our reluctance to exploit new ideas from abroad. Sir Robin Nicholson describes this well as the NIH —the "not invented here"—syndrome. Of course, the other side of the coin is the point already made by my noble friend Lady Denton which has also been made strongly by Sir John Harvey-Jones. We have a wealth of good ideas of our own. It is important to exploit these ourselves, rather than selling them to others abroad.
The report deals at length with the perceived problem of "short termism". In my view, it present a pretty well balanced case. There is the core of a real problem here, but there has been a tendency to use short termism as an excuse to blame the other fellow and not get one's head down to sort the problems out for oneself. I was heartened by the report's confirmation that there seems to be a new realisation in the City and within the investment institutions of the importance of using industrially experienced analysts who really understand the industries that they are researching and who recognise the merits of investing in the short term to achieve a longer-term business gain.
To balance that point, I have to say that we still have some way to go in changing the attitude of some of our leading clearing banks which seem able radically to change their position almost overnight, and wil hdraw that umbrella just when it is most needed. It seems to me that some of the decision makers within the banking community have not seriously researched and understood the industries that the y are supporting. It has been confirmed on the tape tonight that banking complaints for the past year increased by 62 per cent. The problem has led to quite unnecessary anguish for a number of dedicated industrialists who have had to spend more of their energy solving short-term and artificial problems created by unsympathetic banks than on managing the core of their businesses.
The report gives a valuable comparison of fiscal incentives and the cost of capital available in the leading manufacturing nations of the world. Both sides of the case for 100 per cent. capital allowances are fairly presented. I was pleased to see that the committee recommends that companies should be allowed to chose for themselves the rate of depreciation against tax for plant and machinery, without a return to a higher rate of corporation tax. Perhaps we could also return to straight-line depreciation.
I felt that one of the most interesting parts of the report is that which deals with the performance of the Department of Trade and Industry and on the need for a more stable and consistent approach if industry is to benefit from DTI initiatives. The report rightly stresses that industry is usually best placed to make its own decisions and that it is not the province of government to intervene. However, the DTI has a real role in establishing a sympathetic and stable
1454
environment to allow it to do so. My own view is that the DTI has made rather more progress in this area than the report acknowledges. Attitudes are changing and the DTI should be given some credit for the role it has taken in establishing the enterprise initiatives, for promoting total quality management and for taking the lead in promoting the need for open systems within the computer-based systems of our industries.
I should like to conclude on a note of hopeful cautiousness. I sense real change swelling up from the grass roots of many of our quite mature British manufacturing enterprises. The report acknowledges the fact that the best British manufacturing companies are among the best in the world—they are not only among the best, they also "head up" the best in Europe. Recently I had a chance to visit some of these companies and also some of those which have not quite made it as yet. I believe that there is a new generation of dedicated business managers. Many of them, like our present Prime Minister and the four who proceeded him, are drawn from a new grammar school educated meritocracy. They are giving, or have given, the leadership to change attitudes, engender flexibility and they lead innovation from the front. I believe that these men will take serious note of the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee and will learn valuable lessons from the report. I shall not go so far as to say that the report should be compulsory reading for all British industrialists, but I suspect that many of them will be eager to read it and to work to implement some of its recommendations.
The committee has presented us with a well-researched and balanced report that contains many valuable lessons for the future. I hope and believe that British industrialists, our academic institutions and the British Government will respond positively and constructively to the well-reasoned recommendations and that these will form the basis for new hope for the future of our industry here in Britain.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke: My Lords, I wish to echo the compliments paid by previous speakers to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for initiating this important debate. I do so from the standpoint of an industrial career spent in part in the United Kingdom with ICI and in part in the United States with Monsanto: both world-class chemical companies. For the last decade I have served as chairman and chief executive officer of Cable & Wireless—a privatised company renowned for its application of leading-edge technology in satellite and fibre-optic communications, and a company of which I have the present honour to be life president.
I therefore welcome the report of the Select Committee and its central conclusion, reaffirmed by my noble friend Lord Caldecote in his opening speech and also by my noble friend Lord Aldington, that a climate in which innovation can more readily flourish is urgently needed. There are, however, other conclusions and recommendations which I cannot so readily endorse, such as preferential rates of interest

1455
for innovation. My intervention in this debate has necessarily to be limited, and I will confine myself to just two or three aspects of the committee's deliberations.
The report refers briefly—perhaps too briefly—to short-termism and mergers and the inhibiting effect they have on innovation. The report comments on a publication by Professor Marsh, Professor of Management and Finance at the London Business School, which roundly rejects suggestions of City short-termism. He drew attention to the lack of hard evidence of a short-term bias in share prices. My friend and ex-ICI colleague, Sir John Harvey-Jones, said of Professor Marsh that he,
"proves conclusively to his satisfaction that there is no such thing as short-termism".
Sir John goes on to say in his usual forthright way, and again I quote:
"I am bound to tell you that he did not prove that to me".
I have to say that I entirely agree with Sir John. There is evidence enough for those who wish to find it.
The question of merger and takeover policy and its effect on innovation and efficiency really deserves a debate on its own. I wish here to record my view that reliance on the competition criterion alone, which is currently the merger reference for Her Majesty's Government and for Sir Leon Brittan, is acceptable only in a perfect world.
Unfortunately for the purists, we are dealing in the United Kingdom and in other EC and overseas countries with the economics of imperfect competition and discriminatory administrative, political and shareholding barriers. I am now more persuaded by the view that centres of excellence in research, development and innovation are so rare and precious to this country that relying on the competition criterion alone is not sufficient, and that the deliberations of both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the EC Commission should be obliged to consider the ramifications of any merger on manufacturing efficiency, innovation, research and development.
In recognition of the imperfect character of the market, I point to the fact that in this country some 12 fund managers have such a huge control over the equity of our major companies that their decisions alone could effectively determine the fate of any company under threat of takeover, even though the fund managers themselves do not own a single share.
The report quite rightly dwells on the cultural and historical influences on the general manufacturing environment, leading, as the report puts it,
"to the common perception of manufacturing as dirty, dull and unrewarding and that the relatively low remuneration and poor recognition of those involved in wealth creation is a deeply-rooted phenomenon".
Indeed, the report emphasises in bold black print:
"It is clear that the importance and value of industry must be more widely recognised if the United Kingdom's innovative record is to improve".
Linked to that high-minded assertion is the comment of an eminent witness that the country lacks industrial heroes and, to quote again, that,
"many of our great leaders of industry deliberately seek to avoid publicity and the high ground".
1456
Quite so, and I point to the media, among others, as directly or indirectly being responsible for this state of affairs. I refer in particular to the uniquely British embarrassment in accepting that those industrial leaders, entrepreneurs and innovators who excel at their job in creating wealth and employment should receive a reward commensurate with the high rewards earned by football, golf and tennis professionals, by rock and film stars and even by boxers whose appearance in the ring could last less than three minutes. We now have the British phenomenon that when the annual report of a company reaches the media the first page turned to is that which shows the remuneration of the chairman and highest paid director. Those figures are singled out for media attention. We have only to consider the recent brouhaha concerning the remuneration of senior managers of industry who, through their skills, really create the wealth of this country in contrast to those who inherit it and thereby avoid the critical glare of publicity.
If there was a published list of the wealth and income of all individuals in this country, whether derived from inheritance or ownership of land, property or equity, on the one hand, or derived from earned income only, on the other, I have absolutely no doubt that the remuneration of the chairmen of major manufacturing companies and other senior executives in British industry would come very low down indeed on that list. I apologise for speaking so bluntly, but it really is not possible for your Lordships to agree wholeheartedly to the proposition put forward by the committee that the importance and value of industry must be more widely recognised if at the same time there is an open licence to pillory senior executives on their remuneration.
I believe that successful and efficient management, enterprise and innovation should be highly rewarded. I also believe that mediocrity and failure in high places, in industry as elsewhere, should be appropriately penalised. I have never understood, for example, why senior directors or executives who have demonstrably failed, who are dismissed or resign in consequence, should walk away with huge payments in lieu of service contracts. If there is any revision of the Companies Act I would hope that such payments would be admissible only with shareholders' approval.
Finally, I should like to end on an upbeat note. The report comments on a witness's view that,
"one of the most surprising things in this country is that we have some of the best examples of industry and some of the worst almost side by side".
The Economist magazine in its issue of 7th September this year, in a most informative article, revealed that it had teamed up with the London Business School to rank the world's most successful companies. In order to eliminate differences between capital and labour intensive companies, between debt and equity finance, it concentrated on added value; that is, the measurement of how much more a firm's output is worth than all its inputs of materials, labour and capital. The London Business School/Economist team calculated added value during the decade 1981–1990 for some 2,000 publicly quoted companies, drawn from a Paris-based financial information service.

1457
Your Lordships will be interested to learn that of the top 30 of the best and largest companies in the world, the first two were British —number one being Glaxo and number two being Cable & Wireless. An American company came third. Japan and Germany were rare among the top earners.
We have a simple task in front of us. All we have to do is create an environment in which we can bring the rest of British industry up to the efficiency of the top two British companies I have mentioned.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I greatly welcome the fact that the matters contained in the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Innovation in Manufacturing Industry are being considered this evening. I congratulate the noble Viscount and the members of the Sub-Committee on the immense amount of work undertaken. But I have to say that after a careful reading of the report I have certain anxieties which I would like to air.
I do not believe that lack of industrial innovation is the major problem. We have a long history of great innovation throughout the industrial developments which have taken place over nearly 200 years. Transforming such innovation into marketable products to be sold profitably is the trick that does not yet seem to have been mastered. Technological aptitude is not lacking in this country—quite the reverse, We seem to have an obsession with every new piece of gadgetry. We have more mobile phones in the UK than in the rest of the EC; we had more video recorders per thousand population in the early days of their introduction than in the US or Japan; and we have more home computers per thousand population than any other country. None of us is afraid of technology. Even I at my advanced age I have recently taught myself computer skills, and these few words have been prepared on my little laptop computer. Incidentally, therein lies another problem. Britain, the major developer of computers, has to a large extent lost out on the manufacture and marketing of tiny laptops.
I have used the words "marketable" and "marketing" and I do so advisedly early on in my remarks. To many people marketing comes a long way down the list in the development of an idea. Indeed, the development of an idea through to its launch on the market place is innovation. Sadly, I see that the report has also fallen into the same trap. The very first section of the report lists in paragraph 1.5, the business process or activity, and marketing comes fifth in the list after research, design, development and manufacture. The marketing person should be alongside the designers and engineers in the first place. The good marketing person (I am not talking about an advertising whiz-kid) tells the designers and engineers what the customer wants, or is likely to want, following that person's analysis of trends in the market place.
I am told that sometimes the designer, engineer and marketing person are one and the same—but not that often. That is not at all surprising. Most people have neither the time nor talent to develop such
1458
significantly different skills. In over 15 years in manufacturing industry in this country I have only once come upon such a hybrid. I am referring to a design engineer whose business was shot to ribbons by the introduction of VAT on yachts in 1981. He had a small business on the south coast and his only skill was making yachts out of fibreglass. He did not know what to do. His main problem was to try to save the jobs of his employees. By chance his wife said to him one day, "I have done a stint at the local cottage hospital as a voluntary worker trying to help disabled people. With all your design and engineering skills, can't you design and engineer something which will help the wheelchair-bound to have a proper bath rather than rely on hoists, or else putting out the backs of carers?"
That man decided he would be able to transfer his great skills in fibreglass moulding to making such a bath. He did it and marketed it. Not only has it been a worldwide success, but it has been of enormous benefit both to the wheelchair-bound and to carers. I came across that man when I was a judge of the Prince of Wales award scheme for industrial innovation and production. I was gratified to learn that my putting forward of that project won the prize for 1982 and also the prize for the whole decade. He has gone worldwide with it. That is just one example of how a design engineer has good marketing skills.
In my years in manufacturing industry, during my period on the Design Council serving under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and also during the time I served on the Engineering Council beside the selfsame noble Viscount (I have to remark that the pool from which one fishes for people to serve on such bodies seems very small), I was struck by the amazing creative talent which went into the conception of prototypes and the enthusiasm with which engineers and designers evolved state-of-the-art technological wonders. But then something went wrong. Often the upshot was that either the product never reached the high street or (slightly less galling but galling, nonetheless) it was subsequently launched by an overseas company which employed the original designers or bought the patents.
The ability of firms to innovate and the capacity of this nation to compete in knowledge-based world markets depend in large measure on the skills of our workforce. It is a pity that the report was published too early to reflect important new developments on the education and training front which will be critical determinants in our future investment in people and in corporate growth and innovation. First, last July the CBI promulgated, and the Government endorsed, new education and training targets. They provide a national framework for action to secure a skilled and competitive workforce of world class standard. Secondly, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is engaged in a major project which by 1992 will give us recognised standards and portable qualifications applying to all jobs in all sectors at all levels.
Thirdly, in the past month the Secretary of State for Employment launched Investors in People. That sets a rigorous standard of excellence for employers' investment in the training and development of their

1459
workforce. Finally and perhaps most importantly, there has been the establishment of 82 training and enterprise councils in England and Wales and 22 local enterprise companies in Scotland. In a bold new initiative the Government have devolved responsibility for vocational education, training and enterprise development to the TECs and LECs, giving employers the lead responsibility for upgrading the local skill base and driving local economic growth and community regeneration. Taken together those ambitious targets—a framework of standards and qualifications, a kitemark of excellence and an employer-led delivery system—represent dramatic changes in our capacity to make the 1990s the skills decade. I suggest the points contained in chapter 9 of the report have now been largely met by those developments which are uppermost in my mind at the moment, as I have recently been appointed to the National Training Task Force.
The evidence to the Select Committee with some honourable exceptions—particularly that of 3i plc—has an awful ring of inevitability about it, with a moan that the world is unfair. Whoever said it was fair? There is a plea for government help yet no interference. There is a strongly argued case that something should be done to improve the standing of manufacturing industry, but there are not a lot of suggestions that perhaps a case can be made for self-help. How often do we see young industrialists currently employed on the television expounding the excitement that people can derive from working in manufacturing industry? The noble Baroness, Lady Denton, has rightly referred to the work in this area of Sir John Harvey-Jones, but how many of today's leaders of manufacturing industry make it an important part of their job to give the principal speech at prize-giving occasions at their local sixth-form college, comprehensive school or —dare I say it?—girls' school? Are they too busy? Is it irrelevant? Surely, one of the most important and relevant activities of senior managers, be they in manufacturing industry or the service sector, is to ensure that they are attracting the best new talent to their organisations thereby protecting their future.
My first job in British manufacturing was in 1966. How I wish that I had kept some of my papers from that date! It would have confirmed my view that little has changed. The litany, I fear, would read more or less the same: "Please give us a level playing field". That is not strictly true because I reckon that that phrase has only been around a short time, although it seems ages. "Please give us government help, but no interference". "Please crack down on short termism in the City".
As a banker—and I feel exposed here tonight—I know that few things irritate me more than criticising the so-called short termism of the City. Recently, the huge sums set aside for provisions do not all relate to property. The banks are seen as the current whipping boys and, I have to admit, not totally unfairly but largely so. Let it not be forgotten that despite what has been said here this evening, the banks have sustained
1460
UK manufacturing industry over long and difficult periods, including the 1960s and 1970s—periods of stop-go economic policy.
To sum up, let us all try to encourage manufacturing to produce what the market wants. The housewife does not necessarily want to buy a German kitchen. The teenager does not necessarily wish to buy a Japanese personal CD player. The man or woman who does not have the benefit of a company car does not necessarily wish to buy a Fiat or a Renault. Someone somewhere must plead with the manufacturing industry to wake up to the market place. In so doing, they will attract the best talent.
Would it be crazy to suggest that a good future subject for the Select Committee to examine would be the reasons why so much of our consumer expenditure does not support UK manufacturing industry? Government help is not the answer. Probably the best thing is to remember that the Lord helps those who help themselves.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, how very refreshing to succeed the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, after her remarkable speech. She debunked the whole report when everyone else said how splendid it was, which I am about to say. What she said is true, but I see it as complementary to the report rather than critical of it. I do not agree that it is right to say that chapter 9 has more or less been answered already. However, what the noble Baroness said is important, and we should balance it against what many others will say and some of what I shall say.
I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Caldecote and his committee very much for producing a first-class report. For a country which for two centuries has depended more than any other on trade for its survival, let alone its prosperity, I believe that we have failed miserably—particularly in the past 50 or 60 years—to maintain our position in the world market place. If noble Lords are doubtful about that, I suggest that your Lordships read The Audit of War by Correlli Barnett which picks out exactly why we got into this position from which we have not yet recovered.
This excellent report of the Select Committee is most timely and I agree with those noble Lords who said that it was well written and easy to study. It requires careful study by all concerned especially, to my mind, manufacturing companies in recruiting the best people for key decision making, the Government for helping manufacturing companies to become competitive in the market place at home and abroad and not hindering them from doing so, and trade unions in encouraging their members to give priority to the success of their employers.
My closest relations and their friends are all employed in banking, finance and the law. Figure 17 in the report to which my noble friend Lord Oxfuird referred shows that they are not alone. Manufacturing industry was almost completely closed to one young man of my acquaintance because he read history at his university. He found a job on the production side of

1461
a food manufacturer, but it was not organised to retain him or to try to entice him back after he had tried elsewhere.
The CBI says that the best world practice must be spread throughout our manufacturing industry. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said much the same. Of course, we agree, but that will only come about if a great many more manufacturing companies make an effort to recruit and retain the best people.
As a chartered engineer, I have been one of the many who have been puzzled for over 50 years as to why engineers in this country are not held in as high regard as in the countries of our main competitors. Some of the blame must fall on the attitude of the universities, especially 100 years ago. However, I believe that these days the main culprits with outdated attitudes to engineers are to be found in senior managements of big companies and their City acquaintances.
We must not only pay proper regard and reward to first class engineers when we meet them—and I note what my noble friend Lord Sharp said on this point—but also set a pattern which recruits first class brains from other disciplines to join them.
Turning now to the government contribution, the CBI says that government must play their part by creating a climate that makes long-term investment in manufacturing worth while. The Electronics and Business Equipment Association —which some noble Lords may know better as the EEA—says that prior to the 1987 election the DTI was perceived by its members as a supportive partner, willing and able to discuss and promote new markets, support exports, take a head role in European ventures and promote industry views elsewhere within the government machine.
The association goes on to say that from 1987—when, I have to admit, my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham became the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—this positive perception has changed in almost every detail. No doubt my noble friend the Chief Whip, who is to reply, will remember that because he was there for part of the time.
The DTI is now non-supportive and merely the focal point of a totally inadequate UK industrial policy. This great disappointment has been represented to the Prime Minister whose advisers invited him in replying to concentrate on drawing attention to the pre-1987 attitude of the DTI. It has also been represented to my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whose reply in writing also referred to the past decade.
There is now, however, some hope from the more encouraging remarks regarding manufacturing industry made recently by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to which my noble friend Lord Caldecote referred, and also from the comments made at the CBI conference. However, these encouraging remarks need to be given more positive expression by his department. I am advised that the impression gained is that the Secretary of State's heart is in the right place, but that the officials are not yet converted to his approach.
1462
To be blunt, the Government generally and the DTI in particular need to have a long, hard think in conjunction with the best of the most successful British companies—to which my noble friend Lord Sharp and perhaps a few others referred—on how they can most usefully help industry without hindering it. I suggest to your Lordships that paragraph 10.9 of the report makes that point most succinctly.
The trade unions must also play their part more effectively. Paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the report show how far down the productivity league table we still are. Although there have been steady improvements over the past 10 years, we started well down at the bottom of the table at the beginning of that period.
It was my privilege to be the director of an industrial training board in the early 1970s when my employers and friends included senior and experienced trade union leaders. From many conversations with them I obtained the impression —especially at that time—that trade union membership invited divided loyalty between the union and a company. That applied particularly to manufacturing companies with strong union membership. I am sure matters have improved in the past 20 years, especially in the past decade. However, fundamentally, manufacturing companies can only be truly competitive if all of their employees give their first loyalty to the company. Until we can be sure of that in this country, we shall continue to struggle to succeed collectively in the market-place.
It is nearly a year since this report was printed. I hope that its urgent and important message, and the message from this debate, are understood and acted upon by all those to whom they are addressed.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I was a member of the Select Committee that produced this report and I was somewhat anxious about some aspects of the report. We seemed to highlight deep-seated areas of weakness. As has been said this evening, that factor is not true of the pharmaceutical industry. That industry has an excellent record of innovation. Our report was concerned narrowly with manufacturing industry. As one must now admit, the weaknesses in that area often go back to the middle of the 19th Century. As has been pointed out, the heart of our conclusion is that we ought to plan and bring about a change in our culture.
Our weakness in industrial technology has become more apparent as technology itself has become more sophisticated and more firmly based upon science. Industry is certainly not held in high esteem in our society. My experience in universities has shown me that industry is not obtaining its fair share of the most able men and women. They are simply not choosing to enter industry.
However, we must ask ourselves how a change in culture is to be brought about. It certainly cannot be brought about initially by the Government and certainly not by legislation. However, the Government can help at a certain level by restoring incentives, removing obstacles and introducing measures which may act as a catalyst to change, as the report details. I am bound to agree with my noble friend Lord

1463
Caldecote that, so far at any rate, the Government's response to our detailed recommendations cannot be described as helpful.
However, the principal responsibility for change must remain with industry. If fundamental changes are to occur in management, business, the education system and in financial institutions, those changes must first occur in industry itself. Indeed the very nature of successful innovation has changed and is constantly changing. The problem is changing and the game has moved on. Innovation which only assists in making yesterday's products better will not generate the growth we need. By innovation we now mean the ability to bring to the market a continuous stream of sophisticated products ahead of the competition.
Too frequently, in some areas of industry, research and development are regarded in terms of an external black box that is only loosely connected to the industrial enterprise. The input into the black box is money and by mysterious and incomprehensible works within the black box, the money either produces good results or it does not. Too often it does not.
A professor of manufacturing industry at the Harvard Business School has commented on research and development in American companies. He said research and development are regarded simply as the company's fruit machine that rarely hits the jackpot. Innovation occasionally produces remarkable breakthroughs, but I maintain that modern commerce depends to an extraordinary extent upon a continuous stream of innovation at every step of the economic process. That applies to the invention of new products, the streamlining of existing ones and to the continuous improvement of production, distribution and, as has already been mentioned, marketing.
I shall return to the matter of the continuous stream of innovation. Before I do so, I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to the well known complaint that the British are excellent at innovation but poor at follow-up development. If that is true, I believe it constitutes a criticism of management. It suggests that management has been dislocated both from innovation and from research and development. Too often chief executives have become frustrated at being unable to influence the output of their research departments which have retreated into splendid isolation beyond the understanding and control of management. Frequently the distance between innovators and executives is increased because they speak different languages. The executives speak the language of industry while innovators frequently speak the language of science.
The change which is required is to bring innovation and R&D within the ambit of corporate decision making. The operators of research and the innovators, whoever they may be, must be made full partners in the decision making process. Let us remember that sometimes that process may require a change in language conventions. Taking decisions on innovation should be no different in kind from taking any management decisions. If innovative contributions are to form a continuous stream, management needs to be
1464
able to assess systematically all research projects and all innovative projects and synchronise them with strategic corporate decisions.
I wish to quote a sentence from Lowell Steele, the former director of strategic planning at General Motors who made the point well when he said:
"How can the Japanese move so fast in introducing new products and responding to market dynamics? The answer does not lie in access to or use of more advanced technology … the US still equals or leads the world in every field. The answer lies in management".
In other words, Japanese ascendancy rests squarely on leadership in management, and especially the management of innovation.
It is getting late, so perhaps I may turn from Japan and very quickly mention our visit to Germany because I am sure that there is an important lesson to be learnt. Those of us who were privileged to go to Germany were impressed by the universal appreciation in Germany of the importance of innovation. Everyone we met—management, workforce, unions, bankers, central government, and lenders—understood not only that innovation was fundamental to industrial expansion and that without a stream of innovatory ideas the best industries would eventually wither, but also the nexus between management and innovation. On the German visit I was impressed by the extent to which both government and lender were prepared extensively to support industrial research which they judged to be commercially promising.
I suspect that, since our report was published, views have been changing in this country about the extent to which the Government might support innovation and research. The division between basic research and near market research is proving increasingly unsatisfactory and we need greater flexibility in our approach. As we force industry to become more and more competitive the funds which industry is able to make available for research may become more limited.
I should like to tell your Lordships about one visit we made in Germany because it illustrates the point that I am trying to make. We saw public funds being deployed on major industrial research projects. There was one project which was quite extraordinary. It was based in a Max Planck institute. I am sure that your Lordships are aware that a Max Planck institute is concerned with basic pure research. The research, which was enormously expensive, involved a project attempting to find a new material for the manufacture of engines. The researchers were deep into ceramics, to avoid the heat limitations inherent in the use of metal. Your Lordships may imagine our surprise when we discovered that the professor in charge of the whole operation was an Englishman. He had been professor of ceramics at the University of Leeds. The significance of that research is tremendous, because whoever gets ahead in that field will capture the high ground and make enormous commercial and financial gains.
I have some crucial questions for my noble friend the Chief Whip. To what extent is the DTI prepared to alter its present practices? To what extent is it prepared to tolerate greater flexibility so that important projects can be fully supported, not only by industry but also by government?
7.24 p.m.
Lord Laing of Dumphail: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend Lord Caldecote on his report I should like to focus in the main on short-termism as a reason why industry has failed to invest enough in research and development. Before I do so it would be wrong to ignore the ravages of inflation—a point I believe has not been mentioned—which, with the erosion of the value of savings and the increase in the cost of money means that there is less money to invest and pressure for quicker returns.
Short-termism in our society has, as I see it, led to an imbalance in the relationship between those who provide the capital for British industry and those who manage businesses, which I shall try to demonstrate may be structural. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sharp for his remarks, with which I wholly agree.
I am a firm believer in the validity of the market economy. However, to work efficiently over a long period it needs to be in a healthy state of balance. In a free market system the nation functions through the interaction of interdependent yet distinctly separate institutions. Dangers exist if a monopoly is allowed to develop or control of wealth or power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. In the 1920s and 1930s management had substantial economic power over working people and sometimes abused it. The pendulum then swung to the point where in the 1970s trade union leaders had very considerable power in many sectors of industry and, similarly, sometimes abused it. That came to be seen as detrimental to the national interest. We now have to ensure as far as we possibly can that the power of capital concentrated in the hands of a few institutional investors is not similarly detrimental.
When the business community was made up of a great many small companies, and private shareholders predominated, it was extremely unlikely that the actions of any one or even several could damage the national interest. Now, however, we have some very large companies which are crucial to our economic well-being, and relatively few dominant shareholding institutions which own about three-quarters of the UK's equity market compared with only half in 1978. A quarter of the market is in the hands of only 12 fund management groups and the top 50 hold over half the equity. Therefore, the national interest should be a factor in their and our considerations.
The providers of capital and its productive users seem to be living and operating in different worlds with different timescales. That is extremely unhealthy for the national economy. For a publicly-owned company in this country the interests of the shareholders are paramount and their rights are enshrined in law. While a company must be run for performance rather than for the benefit of management, it is wrong to define performance as short-term gains for shareholders. That subordinates all other constituencies to them.
The problem for the nation is that immediate shareholder gains do not optimise the creation of wealth, which requires a balance between the short term and the long. It is management's responsibility to
1466
provide that balance by exercising its commercial judgment. The crucial factor in that judgment is management's belief, rightly or wrongly, that it is being judged by the financial institutions on short-term results. That was confirmed recently by institutions expecting, and saying, that companies should at least maintain their dividends when quite clearly their results did not justify it.
That short-term pressure means that companies forgo investment in areas which are essential to their long-term prosperity in order to protect the bottom line. We are not making the vital technological quantum leaps which, as the Japanese have shown in some important industries, lead to winning dominant world market shares.
Can it be just coincidental that the UK and United States, the two countries with the freest market systems and the highest level of predatory activity, have had the lowest level of reinvestment as a percentage of total output over the past 20 years, at 12 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively? Japan, not surprisingly, has the highest investment rate at 22 per cent. There are, of course, many reasons for Japanese, and German, success and to focus on just one would be a mistake. However, what is common to those two countries is that their companies can take a longer view because their markets for capital operate differently from the Anglo-American and the threat of takeover is virtually non-existent.
The opposed takeover is justified in the UK as being a spur to management, but the absence of it does not seem to have done much to stop the onward march of German and Japanese industry. The response of British managements to threat of takeover is often to concentrate—probably to excess—on bottom line and on their share price at the expense of investment for the long-term development and future security of the business.
The culture in which the shareholder is the principal person worthy of consideration and protection must be challenged. Other stakeholders—I like that word; I used to try to run my company for the benefit of the stakeholders—have recognition, for example, in Japan, Germany, Holland and in some American states.
The fundamental business system in this country has worked well. However, we must ensure that in an environment of expediency we do not end up compromising the basic strength of our free market heritage. The joint stock company was a device to meet a specific financial need at a time when ownership and property were essentially individual, and in Victorian times the concept of limited liability enabled the family company to bestride the globe. Looking at the situation today, the idea of a company as a piece of property is somewhat bizarre. Just as the powers of managements in the 1920s, and of unions in the 1970s, had to be constrained, we should consider seriously in the widest possible debate whether the present balance between capital and managements may need adjusting. I was delighted that one of the recommendations of the Select Committee's report helps to restore that balance.

1467
Other countries have developed their own ways of maintaining a balance. I hope that one day your Lordships may wish to devote time to debating that wider subject. We have to ask ourselves whether the structures which worked so well in the past will necessarily work sufficiently well in the future for the Europe of 2000.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am particularly pleased to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Laing. I have known him for a number of years. I have had the pleasure of visiting his most effectively run company and have been impressed by the way in which he has practised what the remainder of us preach. We were also very fortunate to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, whom I have also known over a number of years. We met first in Paris during the 1940s and 1950s and attended meetings of the OEEC together. He too has had a remarkably successful career in industry, as has the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. Indeed, all speakers have brought considerable knowledge to the subject.
The level of the debate is entirely justified by the importance of the report, which is brief, readable and to the point, but supported by an enormous amount of evidence, both oral and written. I find it a little surprising that a report of this importance, which was published in January, should be debated only in November. It has lost nothing by the delay; it is still very relevant. However, I believe that that delay merits some inquiry.
Two matters disturb me about the report. First, as the noble Viscount said in introducing the report, it takes over from where the 1985 report produced under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, left off. Indeed, it virtually repeats what was in that report. It is disturbing therefore that six years after the recommendations in the Aldington Report, we now have the Caldecote Report repeating those recommendations. Secondly, as the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, told us, while the Government's response generally accepts the broad argument of the report, in detail it failed to accept any of the major recommendations. I find that disturbing also.
A perusal of the report will show, as those of us know who were involved in the original report, who have read the present report and who have had various experiences in industry, there is no simple answer to the problem that we debate. All parties are involved, and all parties will need to take action if we wish to remedy the situation with regard to manufacturing industry.
A number of important points are made in the report on enterprises. For example, those firms which have achieved the most successful innovative progress are those where innovation has started from the top. There has been encouragement from the boardroom downwards. Equally, those firms which have achieved the best relations with their suppliers, and therefore have stimulated British enterprise in that respect, also have started it from the top. When I was at the Coal Board I made a point of developing close relations with our suppliers. We assisted them in every way
1468
possible to develop the world's best mining machinery technology. We then found that we could competitively buy our requirements from British firms.
However, it takes a lot of trouble on the part of major buyers to get the proper response from their suppliers. It is not enough to go back two or three times and say, "You haven't produced it so we'll go elsewhere". I shop at a major store nearby. When I wish to buy a present, I go to its gifts department. The buyer for the gifts department is interested in the Far East because the department is filled with very interesting Chinese, Indian and Japanese products. However, very often I go with the intention of buying gifts for my foreign friends. The last thing I wish to do is to send some gift from as far afield as that. I should be delighted to see many British products in the department store. Insufficient attention is paid to stimulating British suppliers.
On the institutional sector, a number of remarks have been made about the problems that the concentration of power in the hands of a limited number of institutional investors has created. Some institutional investors clearly show a long-term attitude, but in my experience many others take a short-term view. I was particularly disturbed in the report by a footnote on page 33 that the chairman of a leading unit trust group is reported to have written to companies in which the group invests, urging them not to cut their dividend payments in the current recession. That does not seem very responsible advice from a leading institutional investor.
Working down the line, we come to the position of Government. Much has been said in both the Aldington Report and the later report on what needs to be done in our opinion —I was a member of the Aldington Committee—in the way of a change in government attitude. That was also borne out in the recent CBI report. The Government have taken up a firm position of seeing the limit of their task as removing what they consider to be obstacles, and, having cleared the ground, to leave it to market forces to work. However, a number of noble Lords have shown tonight that in certain circumstances that is not enough. It certainly is not practised among our major competitors. The experience of the representatives of the committee who visited Germany and Japan bears that out. The fact is that no one is talking about intervention but about positive support. The forms of support are spelt out in the report, in particular fiscal support to stimulate investment, research and training.
The summary of the report is clear: there is still much work to be done. However, I wish to conclude on a positive note. I shall glimpse into the future and assume that another report on manufacturing industry will be published in 1996. Perhaps on that occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, will act as joint chairmen. I have worked out what should be, and I hope will be, contained in that report and I shall give your Lordships a glimpse of the future. As my comments will appear in Hansard, they can be compared with what the report then actually states.

1469
First, I expect the report to state that during the period that had elapsed since the publication of the present report there had been greater public recognition of the importance of manufacturing and that an increased number of highly trained young people had joined industry to make a career there. Secondly, I expect it to state that the continuous stream of innovation had been established (to which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth referred) and that innovation had been noticeable not only in the pharmaceutical industry but in many other sectors.
Thirdly, the report will state that as a result of those initiatives there had been a substantial increase in productive capacity in manufacturing industry and a continued rise in productivity. In turn that would have led to a sustained positive balance of trade in manufacturing. The financial institutions will deliberately have developed a policy for supporting long-term development and research and not opted for short-term gains. The Government will have introduced fiscal policies which will have successfully stimulated greater investment in industry and more research and training. As a result of all that we shall have established a lead position in the European Community and the prospect of a single currency will no longer hold any fears.
It is quite simple; between now and then all we need to do is to make it happen.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, for introducing the debate on this excellent report. The report was published a long time ago—on 29th January 1991—and it is odd that we are debating it now on 28th November 1991. Since its publication your Lordships have debated manufacturing industry on two or three occasions. During our debate on the humble Address, manufacturing industry played an important part. Therefore, we are traversing somewhat well-worn ground. I shall refer later to the excellent report of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in 1985.
I wish to look away from the report which your Lordships have debated at considerable length and with a great deal of expertise. A volume of new evidence has been produced during the past year or so from the CBI, EEF, ACOST and other organisations. It indicates that a consensus is growing around the approach indicated in the report before us. That new consensus is right. It is different from the attitude described by several noble Lords; that market forces prevail, that that is the end of the matter and that nothing more is to be said.
I wish to look at four key points for the future and indicate where we should be moving so that when we have the report indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, it will be in the terms that he described rather than describing how we have failed yet again. First, I believe that no one doubts that to correct our balance of trade, and hence our balance of payments deficit, we must have a substantial increase in manufacturing output. That was a fundamental message of the report
1470
and I believe that no noble Lord can seriously contest the argument. There used to be a theory that services would in some way take over from manufacturing industry as a generator of foreign earnings and that we could forget about the industry.
One must remember that even in the depths of a recession we are, according to the Autumn Statement, facing a balance of payments deficit of £6.5 billion. After every previous recession we have come into a balance of payments surplus—perhaps we have gone into it with a deficit but we have come out with a surplus. According to the Autumn Statement we shall next year emerge from the recession with a balance of payments deficit between £11 billion and £11.5 billion. That is so even with the modest recovery forecast contained in the Autumn Statement. There are spokesmen who say that that does not matter so long as one can finance the deficit. I do not believe that to be true; we cannot go on like that. All the figures show that we shall never get the deficit under control even in recession, let alone during a period of recovery, unless there is a substantial increase in output volume in manufacturing industry. How do we achieve that?
I agree that we must try to ensure that there is best practice in all firms. I agree with the comments of the CBI. I agree with the report's virtuous recommendations about training, marketing and so forth. However, the report emphasises two aspects that I wish to point to in particular. First, we must have an industrial policy and I do not apologise for saying that. We must know where we are going. I do not believe those noble Lords who say that there has been a sudden change in the attitude of DTI Ministers to the problem. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was a little unfair on the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, whom I regarded as a slightly interventionist Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Nevertheless, I do not believe that DTI Ministers have grasped the idea that we must have an industrial policy. They are still under the yoke of the doctrine of market forces. Until we change that attitude, as we will, we shall not get anywhere. The problem has nothing to do with officials; it has to do with Ministers and the direction of government.
Secondly, the report rightly pointed out that we must develop a closer partnership between government and industry. Ministers, officials and industrialists must ensure that they are working along the same lines. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others pointed to experience in Germany. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, said that he is impressed with what happens in Germany, France, Japan and so forth. The noble Lord, Lord Laing, rightly pointed out that it was only in the economies of the United Kingdom and the United States, which have that curious theory about market forces ruling everything, that investment in new technology and techniques is so low.
The second major point which I must make is that generally the United Kingdom is not spending enough on civil research and development compared with our competitors. How do we solve the problem? There are some fairly worthy ideas on that subject. I include the technology trusts which my party has put forward. However, the only promising avenue which I see is

1471
redeployment of the resources which are going to R&D in defence industries. I fail to see any of that in Options for Change, a document dealing with the size of our armed forces. Proportionately we spend a great deal on R&D in the defence industry. I should like to see some of that, so far as it is consistent with the proper defence of the country, switched to civil applications of R&D.
Obviously, education and training in science and technology must be at the top of the agenda. Training in skills is fundamental. However, the third point I wish to take up from the noble Lords, Lord Sharp and Lord Laing, is the question of short termism and the financial community. I do not believe that we can avoid tighter rules on takeover bids. I am bound to say that my experience as a banker is that the amount of management time and effort spent in fighting off bids or putative bids or thinking about quarterly earnings figures in order to fight off a possible bid from someone else is detrimental to the long term future of industry. That is now generally accepted.
It is also true—figures from the DTI show this time and again—that takeovers do not, on balance, add to the general efficiency of industry. That was proved in the Green Paper of the 1970s which studied merger policy and proved again in the DTI document published a few years ago which also studied merger policy. Those matters are not necessarily successful. What is successful is long term commitment to the in-house development of technology.
How do we achieve that? The noble Lord, Lord Laing—and I am not being impertinent—made an extremely effective and useful analysis of the shareholdings in British industry showing how a few fund managers can almost, by a few telephone calls, determine the fate of a company. We must try to develop a system—wider share ownership, though possibly desirable, is not a cure—whereby relations between the fund managers who run other people's moneys (not their own) and the institutions for which they work and companies can become much more developed and loyal than they are at present. My right honourable friend John Smith has put forward some ideas. I do not want to go into those ideas. However, we are seriously considering the possibility of trying to develop a system, which the noble Lord, Lord Laing, was groping towards, whereby we have a much closer relationship between the fund managers and managers of companies.
The fourth point is the question of the role of government and allied to that I introduce the role of Parliament and political parties. In my view the report quite rightly says that government/industry relationships are unsatisfactory and we must do better. Before coming to that point, I believe that Parliament should do better. In this House we are fortunate to have representation from industry, bankers and the commercial sector. I am bound to say that in my view it is the job of industry to make sure that candidates for another place who have experience in industry, are put forward and are supported. That is a matter which industry should take on board. It is not sufficient for companies to say, as some companies do, "If you are
1472
going to fight for a seat in Parliament, you had better forget about your industrial career". We should encourage better contacts between political parties, the activists in parties and industry. Over the past few years my party has tried to do that. At local level we have talked to industrialists who were surprised that representatives of the Labour Party should wish to talk to them. All parties should do that.
I turn to the role of government. I cannot add to what the report says in criticising the role of government with regard to industry. We are in fairly serious trouble as regards the relations between government and industry when the Secretary of State, who I shall not name, arrives at his office at the DTI asking "What is this place for?" The report made that absolutely clear. The latest examples of privatisation—the Insurance Services Group of the ECGD and the British Technology Group—are examples of how DTI Ministers have not yet got the message.
I shall not weary your Lordships by explaining my party's proposals. I introduce a commercial plug at this point by saying that a document is available which I shall be delighted to sell to noble Lords outside the Chamber. We have many proposals which are spelled out in great detail about what we propose to do. They are broadly along the lines of this report. There are some differences of opinion but they are not significant. That is because the consensus which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech is now emerging. Whichever party wins the next election, the time has come to change the role of government vis-à-vis industry. There was the Aldington Report in 1985 and the Caldecote Report in 1991. If we are to have the Ezra Report in 1996 or 1998 in the terms which the noble Lord wants, then we must work on that new consensus. I do not believe that this Government are doing that.
Whatever the result at Maastricht, the problems which we have are problems at home. Whichever party forms the next government, it will have to deal with those problems.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, may I first of all thank my noble friend Lord Caldecote and the members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to debate their important and valuable work in producing the report Innovation in Manufacturing Industry. The Government warmly welcome the report as it addresses a topic which they regard as particularly important. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when giving evidence to the committee, said that he could not imagine a healthy UK economy without a vigorous and successful manufacturing sector. He went on to say that he believed that manufacturing industry was vital for the future prosperity of the country.
The Government agree with the committee that the prime responsibility for innovation rests with industry. The government's role must be to establish the right climate in which enterprise and business can flourish, and to act as a catalyst for change in attitudes towards industry and innovation. A wide range of policies determine this including taxation, education,

1473
competition, privatisation, trade union laws, deregulation and reducing the burdens on industry. I could go for others as well, but I will not.
We believe that the Government have done much to assist the achievement of the right climate by, among other things, cutting tax rates, to restore incentives; reducing the share of the nation's income taken by public spending, to release resources for industry; scrapping pay controls, price controls, dividend controls, exchange controls, and countless other controls, to restore managers' right to manage; reforming trade union law; reviving vocational educational and skill training; by the privatisation policy that has been followed over the past decade; and, most importantly, by encouraging competition.
One particularly important, and noteworthy, achievement that I should like to mention is our success in reducing UK corporation tax to 33 per cent. At that level it is now the lowest in any European Community or G7 country. The rate for smaller companies is even lower at 25 per cent. That means that mare money is left with industry, so that a greater proportion of company profits is available to invest. Investment is essential for a company to innovate and so stay ahead and, most importantly, to remain competitive. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with me that R&D which has been planned and funded by industry is, by far, the most important R&D. It is encouraging, therefore, that the latest statistics available on such company-funded R&D show growth in real terms of more than 50 per cent. over the six years leading up to 1989.
However, even taking account of the rise in company-funded R&D, it is still not enough. Comparisons between Britain and the most successful economies suggest that the British private sector still invests less in R&D than its competitors, and manages the commercial development of new products and processes less effectively. If UK manufacturing industry is to compete in national and international markets, its success in doing so will depend increasingly on its willingness to invest in effective R&D, leading to innovative products which the market needs and wants. Of course, the pre-condition of private investment in R&D is profitability. Without profits, industry has neither the resources nor the incentive to invest in its future.
The Government recognise that the market on its own will not undertake enough pure or pre-competitive R&D. Therefore, the Government support research in areas where there are net national benefits to be gained and where industry alone cannot be expected to shoulder the whole burden of funding. To that end the Government support civil R&D to the tune o r some £3 billion a year, a not insubstantial sum of money, and one that is as much as the Japanese Government spend as a percentage of GDP.
But the idea that government should spend more on R&D and that that will automatically lead to innovation and commercially successful products is untrue. As the Government have said in their response, innovation is more than just R&D, it involves the continual introduction of new products and processes, using new designs, deploying new
1474
skills, and opening new markets. Successful innovation will help a firm stay ahead of its competitors and provide a healthy level of profits in the future.
I am encouraged that the Government and the members of the Select Committee share the view that there must be a national change of attitude to recognise the full importance of innovation to a successful manufacturing economy. That is why, when the committee's report was published, the Government were able to respond positively by endorsing many of the report's recommendations. Indeed, a significant number of its recommendations had already been implemented prior to publication of the report. For example, we have introduced a package of new measures, collectively worth nearly £50 million, for smaller firms as they have an important role to play in innovation which depends chiefly on their R&D activities. Smaller firms often find it particularly difficult to raise funds, and the new schemes will help them to be more innovative and exploit more effectively the science base.
The largest of the new innovation schemes is SPUR (support for products under research). I hope that that will be the last time that I shall use an acronym this evening. My noble friend Lady Denton made a telling point on the subject of acronyms when discussing innovation, and I am hoping to resist further urges. SPUR was introduced in February this year and offers smaller firms a fixed 30 per cent. grant towards eligible project costs, up to a maximum grant of £150,000, to develop new innovative products and processes. SPUR has been widely welcomed and got off to a most promising start, and over 1,000 registrations of interest have already been received. Other recommendations that we have implemented include: an expansion of the number of awards under the SMART scheme for very small firms with fewer than 50 employees; tax relief for individuals to cover training leading up to and including national vocational qualifications; and making DTI schemes more readily accessible and easily understood.
On a personal note, when I had the privilege of going to the DTI on my first day as Minister of State there, I arrived on the basis of having applied for a period of 10 years for grants from the DTI. I had never successfully obtained one. On accessibility, it is important to emphasise the difficulty that the ordinary layman—entrepreneur or innovator—has, in achieving access to the great doors of state in Whitehall.
On my last example, I might just mention what the DTI has done to assist. The new DTI brochure Technology and Change — Help for Business, published in May 1991, draws together for the first time, all the innovation services offered by DTI. That is supported by an innovation enquiry line on which people can phone without charge for information about the schemes available. Both those initiatives have significantly improved the access of the ordinary man in the street to DTI schemes. At the same time, the rules and procedures for all collaborative schemes were simplified. The take-up of schemes such as LINK and EUREKA has been accelerating. That is significant.

1475
But I touched upon the crux of the matter earlier when I said that the Government and the Select Committee agree that there should be a national change in attitude to recognise the full importance of innovation to a successful manufacturing economy. Cultures and attitudes cannot, as we all know, be changed by law or decree. What government can do is restore the incentives, remove the obstacles and introduce measures which cumulatively will act as a catalyst to change attitudes and practices of management, in business, the education system and financial institutions. That is what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had in mind when he recently established an innovation unit in his department. The innovation unit will act as the catalyst for change in attitudes to innovation. It seeks to overcome the cultural bias against business and practical skills that inhibit innovation in the UK's industrial base. To do that it will draw on the services of senior industrialists who, with direct experience of innovation in business, are joining the unit on secondment—a further example of the Government's commitment to the committee's recommendations.
The new unit aims to improve the commercial exploitation of our excellent science and technology base; increase the importance and improve the management of innovation in business; improve communications on innovation between companies, investors and banks; raise awareness in education of the wealth-creating potential of technology and engineering; and, lastly but by no means least, to increase public awareness and understanding of the role of innovation in wealth creation.
I am sure that I join all in your Lordships' House in hoping that Lady Butterfield will be restored to good health as soon as possible. I also take the opportunity to make a commitment that the department will investigate Miss Helen Sharman's crystals, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and her recent endeavours in space.
I was encouraged to hear of another Member of your Lordships' House with an interest in motorcycles, which the father of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, certainly had. It is also important to remember that the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has certain attractions, but I dare not make a statement as to whether or not he is correct that by 1996 a single currency will hold no fears.
My noble friend Lord Caldecote rightly referred to the proposals for recommending tax credits on R&D. However, there is the difficulty of actually defining R&D. That must be addressed if one is to pursue the argument. I was greatly impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Laing of Dumphail and by his extremely strong feelings as regards both shorttermism and his principle of interest in stakeholders in a company above and beyond that of the property of the shareholders. I am sure that there will be a future debate giving an opportunity for that subject to be discussed again.
I was also pleased and surprised that my noble friend Lord Aldington was happier than he was in
1476
1985. I was also pleased and impressed when he quite rightly pointed out the importance that we have as a country to make young people understand the opportunity of manufacturing industry as a career. I agree with his support for innovation and information, which is vital. I am also grateful for the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Caldecote as regards cultural change as he saw it in the United Kingdom and also for the way in which he welcomed the Innovation Advisory Board.
My noble friend Lady Denton mentioned a cause close to my own heart, which is not exciting but one that is destroyed by bureaucracy's acronym-creating ability; namely, BS 5750. I have been deeply impressed by the pleasure that that gives to various companies that I have the opportunity on most Fridays to visit in order to present certificates. It shows that they believe that although difficult to understand by its descriptive powers it clearly provides commercial advantage for their own future betterment.
My noble friend Lord Aldington asked whether there was additional funding. I drew his attention this evening to the extra £50 million provided since the report was published. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, pointed out three remarkable facts that are worth remembering: there are more VCRs per head of population in this country, more cellular telephones than in the rest of Europe and more personal computers per head of population. That does not indicate a country that is uninterested in change or innovation. The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Williams, drew attention to the lateness of your Lordships' debate. It is worth remembering that the report was published only in March rather than January. The response from the Department of Trade and Industry was made in June and then followed the summer holidays. I like to think that in terms of balance we have just about got it on the right spot.
My noble friend Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke quite rightly finished expressing his views in the debate by pointing out the success, little advertised, both of Glaxo and Cable & Wireless in achievement and comparability around the world for British companies. I have always strongly felt that as regards this country's ability in innovation and creativity we do ourselves down. I should like to conclude the record by saying what other people think of us rather than what we think of ourselves. Other people such as Japan and the United States invested nearly one dollar and one yen out of every two in the United Kingdom last year as compared with the rest of Europe. We may put ourselves down, but in manufacturing industry in the past decade our productivity rose by 52 per cent. and exports by 61 per cent. Those are figures not of failure but of success.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we have had a most valuable and interesting debate. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the report and also those who have provided constructive criticism. There is very wide agreement that we need a culture change very urgently. We need more innovation. It is mainly industry's task but the Government can help.

1477
My noble friend Lady Denton thought that I was blaming the Government for the lack of market share in the machine tool industry. That is not so. I believe that they made mistakes about 25 years ago. I was suggesting that some action needed to be taken in industries of that kind where it is important to help them to get hack. It is necessary to help the weak, and to help small companies to become big again. It is not a question of helping lame ducks, but of helping good, small companies to become big again. They need help with investment problems.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, about the importance of the market. If she reads the report, she will see that we place a great deal of emphasis on that and I do not believe that there is anything between us on that subject. I was not arguing for subsidies of any kind but merely that industry should be supported as the Japanese machine tool industry was. When it was changing from numerically controlled machine tools to computers on the machines, they gave special tax incentives to help that part of industry which it was thought was very important to the future of Japan. That measure was very effective.
I liked the plea from my noble friend Lord Laing of Dumphail for innovation in the structure of companies and also the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the 1996 report. I hope that that will come true. My noble friend Lord Hesketh gave us some encouragement. I am very grateful to him for his reply. I believe that the Government are putting too much emphasis on supporting research and not the more expensive and later parts of the process of innovation. A great deal is being done, and I welcome the work of the Innovation Unit of the DTI; but I believe that we are agreed that not enough is being done.
Perhaps I was lacking in recognition of the new attitude in the DTI and that of the Secretary of State of Trade and Industry towards innovation. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him for his very exciting and encouraging contribution of £375,000 over four years to the Fellowship of Engineering MacRobert award for innovation in engineering which he announced this week. That is a very encouraging pointer to the new outlook in the DTI. We all hope that we can go forward rapidly from there to even greater support and towards the growth of manufacturing industry. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Companies Act 1985 (Bank Accounts) Regulations 1991
8.18 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving these draft regulations, I shall also speak to the Bank Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Banks) Regulations 1991. The purpose of these regulations is short and simple: to implement the EC Bank
1478
Accounts Directive. The directive, on the other hand, is neither short nor simple. Neither, inevitably, are the regulations. The directive complements the fourth and seventh company law directives, which established for companies other than banks and insurance companies the accounting requirements for individual and consolidated accounts. They were implemented in this country by the Companies Acts of 1981 and 1989 respectively. The bank accounts directive applies most of the general provisions of the fourth and seventh directives to banks. It also specifies comprehensive balance sheet and profit and loss account formats; it defines what items should be included under each statement heading; it specifies certain additional disclosures to be made by way of notes to the accounts; it establishes special valuation rules to be applied in stating certain balance sheet and profit and loss account items; it specifies certain adaptations in respect of the requirement to prepare consolidated accounts; and it lays down rules in relation to the publication and auditing of accounts.
The implementation of the directive will update the accounting requirements for banks and bring them into line with those which apply to the generality of companies. Compliance with the regulations will be required in respect of accounting periods beginning on or after 23rd December 1992.
As noble Lords will have noticed, there are two sets of regulations and it may be helpful if I briefly outline the scope of each. First, there is the set which uses the powers under Section 257(1) and (2) of the Companies Act 1985. That is the one which will apply to nearly all UK banks. The second set is needed to deal with banks which are not companies to which the Companies Acts apply. In all cases, authorised UK banks will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Banking Act 1987.
The directive is not only complex, but it contains numerous member state options. To ensure that all relevant factors were identified and fully considered before the regulations were drafted, the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultation document in July 1989. That invited views on a number of points, including how the member state options should be exercised and whether it would be appropriate to include additional disclosure requirements in the regulations going beyond those in the directive and in Schedule 4 to the Companies Act 1985. The consultation document was circulated to some 600 interested firms, organisations and individuals, and to all UK authorised banks. Copies were placed in the Libraries of both Houses and were also available on request.
In July 1990 a further consultation document was issued, inviting comments on the draft regulations. That was copied to all those who responded to the earlier document. Again, copies were placed in both Libraries and were available on request. The existence of both documents was publicised by Parliamentary Questions and press notices. A final consultation document containing revised draft regulations was issued in August 1991. In addition, the Department of Trade and Industry had a number of meetings with

1479
representatives of the British Bankers' Association, which made a positive contribution to the process of implementing the directive.
Those who replied to the consultative documents included the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and a number of banks and accountancy firms. All the comments received were carefully analysed by the department, in consultation with the Bank of England, the Treasury and the Building Societies Commission. The draft regulations have the support of the banking industry.
I have spoken about the purpose, scope and content of the regulations. I believe their value and importance are self-evident. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Viscount for moving the Motion and discussing the orders. We have no problems with them. Indeed, the Government seem to have gone further than the directive in not allowing the creation of a hidden reserve—that the directive does allow—of up to 4 per cent. or below of cost or market value, loans and advances, debt security shares and variable yield securities. We approve of that. I have always argued that inner reserves for banks under the old 1948 Act should not be allowed. I am glad to see that that is not to be permitted.
We also approve of the Government going a little further than the directive in prohibiting the creation of a fund for general banking risks of a curious nature. The layout and method of foreign currency translation, publication and auditing in our view track the directive. We are therefore quite happy with them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bank Accounts Directive (Miscellaneous Banks) Regulations 1991
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Astor.)
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Library Charges (England and Wales) Regulations 1991
8.24 p.m.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor rose to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1990–91].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these regulations will empower library authorities in England and Wales to make charges for providing the library facilities which are set out in the regulations. They will replace the limited charging powers which
1480
library authorities presently have, correct certain anomalies in the existing legislation and introduce new charging powers. They have been drawn up only to cover those library facilities made available by library authorities in the course of carrying out their functions under Section 7 of the 1964 Act.
The draft regulations were sent out for comment to representatives of those responsible for, or with an interest in, the administration and operation of the public library service in England and Wales. The final draft was prepared after considering all the views expressed during the consultative period.
I must now address a point which has caused some anxiety in another place. It was as a result of the consultative exercise that my honourable friend the Minister for the Arts decided to remove the upper limit of £1.50 on reservation charges. The Federation of Local Authority Chief Librarians strongly urged its removal. The Government accepted the arguments that there was no indication of need that a maximum charge, which could soon become a norm, should either be specified or set so high.
As no recommendations for the level of charges are made in respect of other services, there seems little reason for specifying a maximum in relation to readers' requests. It would be more appropriate simply to confirm the ability to charge and allow authorities to regulate that charge.
Before specifying the particular facilities which library authorities would be empowered to charge for in the regulations, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the Government have taken positive steps to ensure that the traditional free public library service is not undermined by the regulations.
An important safeguard for free access to the library service has been built into the provisions of the 1964 Act, as substituted by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The Government excluded from the scope of the enabling power two main elements which are generally regarded as the traditional free public library service. Those are, the borrowing and consultation of written material. That statutory safeguard, which is repeated in the draft regulations, demonstrates the Government's commitment to maintaining the essential free traditional public library service.
As I said, the regulations will preserve the existing powers to charge contained in the 1964 Act. They will also correct certain anomalies. They will introduce new charging powers and give library authorities power to charge for assistance given by library staff.
All the powers to charge will, as at present, be discretionary. Authorities will be able to decide whether or not to charge for any service. When they do decide to charge, they will be able to decide whom they charge and the concessions which they give. Authorities are required to make those charges known in advance to members of the public. The Government's principal aim is to facilitate the improvement of the public library service for the benefit of its users; to give the service access to additional sources of revenue, while preserving the principle of free access to the traditional service. The regulations are just one of a series of steps that the

1481
Government have taken to help library authorities, and they will continue to take steps to make the library service efficient, modern and good value for money.
The regulations will help in that process. They clarify existing legislation and introduce modest new charging powers which reflect the new type of library facilities commonly provided since the introduction of the 1964 Act. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 22nd July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee Session 1990–91].—(Viscount Astor.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Viscount explained the origin of the regulations. I do not wish to examine that aspect in any depth as it is getting late. It was the Green Paper entitled Financing our Public Library Service: Four subjects for debate, published by the Government in February 1988, which held out the prospect of raising a great deal more money for public libraries by charging for more services and charging more for those services. That was always regarded as unrealistic and indeed was opposed by the vast majority of the thousands of individuals and organisations who responded to the Green Paper.
It is to the credit of the former Minister for the Arts, Sir Richard Luce, that he took those representations on board and modified his proposals in the light of them. The consequence is that in the broadest terms little change is being made to the law on library charges. As the noble Viscount pointed out, it will still be unlawful to charge for the lending of books and it will still be lawful to charge for the lending of other materials like cassettes and videos. More important, the former Minister for the Arts was insistent that the new legislation should do no more than allow local authorities to charge for some services but not compel them to do so. I therefore wish to pay tribute to Sir Richard for being that unusual thing, a listening Minister. He took heed of the representations made to him and avoided the idea of compelling charges for specific services.
So far, so good. There are, however, aspects of the regulations now before your Lordships' House which are worrying. One of the strongest characteristics of the British library system is the facility for inter-lending between different libraries. By this means, a member of the public who finds that his or her own local library does not have a certain book in stock can arrange for it to be obtained from another library. For example, it may be another public library, a university library or, in the last resort, it could be the British Library. It is the view of the Library Association, which represents 24,000 librarians in the United Kingdom, that aspects of the present regulations will endanger that valuable inter-lending practice.
The regulations will allow libraries to make a charge for reserving material for a reader. That will apply whether the material requested is stocked by the library to which application is made or has to be obtained from another library. In the draft regulations which were sent out for consultation to a large number of organisations, a limit of £1.50 was set on the reservation charge which could be levied. Sir Richard Luce and his short-lived successor Mr. Mellor both
1482
intended to impose that £1.50 limit as a maximum charge for the reservation of books. But the present Minister for the Arts, Mr. Timothy Renton, decided to remove it.
Defending that decision in another place on Monday, the Minister called in aid the representations which had been made to him by the Federation of Local Authority Chief Librarians. He rightly said that that organisation had taken a different view from that of the Library Association and that he preferred the former's view. But the Minister went further. He claimed that a majority of chief librarians favoured having no upper limit for the charge. I understand that there is no basis for that allegation. No survey was made of the individual views of each chief librarian in England and Wales on that point. It is the firm view of the Library Association that the vast majority of its members favour having a maximum. The Minister suggested that any maximum figure may tempt local authorities to treat it as a minimum or norm. But there is an equally compelling view that having no maximum at all will lead to a progressive rise in charges well above the maximum which the previous Ministers contemplated.
Westminster City Council, for example, recently decided that the librarian in charge of each of its branch libraries will be free to levy anything from 20p to £2 as a reservation charge. If the present Minister for the Arts had not removed his predecessors' proposed maximum, that upper figure would simply not have been admissible. So here, right away, even before the regulations are in force, we have an actual example of the upward pressure to which there is now to be no ceiling.
I know that the noble Viscount will point out that in existing law there is no maximum set for such charges. However, in recent years there have been new and harsh pressures on local authority finance and, therefore, pressures for raising more in charges. The danger of excessive charges is now more real than before. That is why it is even more important to have a maximum now than it was in the past and why the Minister's predecessors were more wise than he in deciding to impose one. I deeply regret that on this matter the Government have declined to take the advice of the Library Association which, under its royal charter, is enjoined to scrutinise legislation and tender advice to the Government upon it.
There is a further point on which I should like a definite assurance from the noble Viscount tonight. Regulation 4(1) says that where a charge is authorised by the regulations, the amount and the incidence of the charge,
"shall be at the discretion of the relevant authority".
The Library Association has pointed out that these words appear to allow an authority to charge as much as it likes for a reservation. I understand that the Office of Arts and Libraries has suggested that a local authority would not be free to charge more for reservations than the actual cost incurred in processing them. But the words of the regulations do not seem to bear out that interpretation. Therefore, if the regulations are passed in their present form, it could be a matter upon which only a court of law

1483
could decide in the end. When the noble Viscount replies, can he make it clear whether it is the Government's view that, under these regulations, a library can only charge for the actual cost of processing the reservation and no more? I await with interest his reply.
I should like to conclude by recognising the important role played by our public libraries in the life of the country. We are all concerned about the encroachment of television on national reading habits, and illiteracy is, unfortunately, still a real problem. Our public libraries have for well over a century now constituted a valuable cultural and information resource. I repeat that we appreciate the fact that the Government are not changing the basic service; but we are concerned that these regulations could start a process of transforming it into something much closer to a commercial service. If that were to happen, the cultural life of the country would suffer greatly. Moreover, authors, publishers and booksellers would also suffer.
I therefore appeal to local authorities which are, I deeply appreciate, very hard pressed financially—indeed, many of them are capped—to exercise the powers given to them under these regulations with the greatest caution in order to protect the wonderful legacy which has been handed down to us by our predecessors. We must ensure that we pass on to our successors a system which, it is to be hoped, will be no poorer than the one we inherited.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk asked me about reservations. She pointed out, quite rightly, that the regulations allow a charge to be made for making a reservation and for notifying the user that the item is not available. All the direct and indirect costs associated with those two activities could be covered in the charge. Authorities cannot levy unreasonable charges. Their charges are subject to judicial review. It would seem reasonable to set the charge to prevent abuse without, at the same time, deterring those who need to make the reservations. Local authorities are also permitted to charge for the services which they provide each other and for providing material on inter-library loan. However, the regulations do not allow for the cost of obtaining a requested item to be passed on to the operator.
Should charges be seen to get out of hand, the Minister will consider setting a ceiling on this or on any other charging provision as seems to be appropriate. Indeed, he will monitor the charging levels. All library authorities will be contacted in two years' time so that he can assess the situation.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Viscount did not answer my question about whether it is a fact that local authorities will be allowed to charge only the extra incurred in the processing of the reservation. I asked that question specifically and requested that he reply to it tonight.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that I did reply to that question. I said that the process of notifying the user that an item is not available and all the direct
1484
and indirect costs associated with the two activities involved could be recovered in the charge. That is the answer to the question.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, with the greatest respect, that is not the answer. As I understand it, the Minister is not saying that it is restricted to the cost of processing the reservation; he is saying that libraries can do more or less what they like. But how many of us understand the regulations as they stand at present?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not think that that is right. If a library charged too much, the reservation charge could become the norm and there is, therefore, a risk that the reservation charge could be tantamount to the charge for borrowing. That is something that authorities cannot do.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry but I feel that I must pursue this point. How does the noble Viscount define "too much?". If there is no maximum, how can one define what is too much?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have already said that the authorities cannot charge unreasonably. It is up to the authorities to look at their costs to decide what they want to charge. Indeed, they have the discretion to decide whether they want to charge or not. They do not have to charge. They have that discretion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Seed Potato Development Council (Amendment) Order 1991
8.40 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 14th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this order amends the Scottish Seed Potato Development Council Order 1981 and is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. It increases from £15 per hectare to £25 per hectare of seed potatoes classified the maximum annual charge which may be levied on producers by the council in order to meet the expenses incurred in the exercise of its functions. The levy on producers in 1990 was £15 per hectare, discounted to £14 per hectare for early payment. The increase in the maximum levy is intended to take account of any increase in costs between now and 1995, when the continuation of the council and its operations will be statutorily reviewed.
Paragraph 6(1) of the Scottish Seed Potato Development Council Order 1981 authorises the council, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to impose an annual levy on every producer of classified seed potatoes at a rate not exceeding £15 per hectare. The council operated on a rate of £10 per hectare from its inception in 1982 until 1987, and only in 1990 was the statutory maximum of £15 per hectare levied, with a discount of £1 per hectare for early payment.
The area of seed potatoes classified in Scotland has gradually declined since 1982, when the classified area was 20,341 hectares, to 14,205 hectares in 1991, thus reducing the council's prospective income. This is the primary reason for the proposed increase in the maximum levy to? 25 per hectare. I am very happy to commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee]. —[The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Earl for having explained the order so clearly. It must be something of a record for a farmer to agree with an increase in farming costs; but I have no comments to make beyond saying that we understand and approve the purpose of the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1991
8.43 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 14th October he approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this order, which was laid before the House on 14th October 1991, he approved.
The Disability Living Allowance and the Disability Working Allowance Act of the last Session introduced two new benefits for disabled people; namely, disability living allowance, which provides help with the extra costs of disability for people of working age and below; and disability working allowance, to top up the earnings of disabled people in work. Disability living allowance will replace mobility allowance completely, and attendance allowance for people under 65 from April 1992. The Bill also made a number of consequential amendments to certain United Kingdom tax Acts, all of which were of a beneficial character.
The Bill introducing these new benefits also contained a clause which enabled an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974, subject only to negative resolution procedure, to be made providing the same benefits for Northern Ireland. However, as such an Order in Council cannot make consequential amendments to United Kingdom Acts, and as the Bill did make a number of such consequential amendments to certain United Kingdom tax Acts, which are as I have said all of a beneficial character, it is necessary to make a separate order for this purpose under Section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. This is the order for which I am now seeking the approval of your Lordships' House.
Article 2 amends the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 to give additional relief for certain trusts for people with
1486
disabilities. It ensures that people on the highest or middle rate of the care component of disability living allowance in Northern Ireland will qualify for this relief in the same way as people currently receiving attendance allowance in Northern Ireland.
Article 3 amends the Value Added Tax Act 1983 to take account of the replacement of mobility allowance in Northern Ireland. At the present time charges for leasing cars on a long-term basis to people receiving mobility allowance may be zero-rated for VAT.
Article 4 amends the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 in the same way as Article 2 amends the Capital Gains Tax Act. Certain trusts for people receiving the highest or middle rate of the care component of disability living allowance will qualify for special relief from inheritance tax, in the same way as trusts for people receiving attendance allowance.
Article 5 repeals a reference to mobility allowance in so far as it applies to Northern Ireland, in Section 617(1) (a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Mobility allowance is being replaced by the mobility components of disability living allowance.
Article 6 amends the Capital Allowances Act 1990 so that allowances on vehicles leased to people presently on mobility allowance will apply to vehicles leased to people receiving either rate of the mobility component of disability living allowance.
The people of Northern Ireland will qualify to receive the two new benefits for disabled people which were recently provided for people in Great Britain by the Act to which I have referred. This order ensures that certain recipients of one of those benefits—namely, disability living allowance—will be treated in the same way under various tax Acts and removes references in those Acts to mobility allowance.
I am sure that the House will wish to support this order which is in essence intended to bring Northern Ireland into parity with Great Britain so far as consequential tax changes are concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th October be approved [1st Report from the Select Committee].—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for having explained so clearly and so carefully the purpose of the order and its relationship to the statutory instrument which was laid before Parliament on 1st August last. Although my comments will be very brief indeed, that does not mean that we minimise in any way the importance of disability legislation for the disabled people of Northern Ireland.
I must confess that I was in some difficulty in grasping the full meaning of the amendments which are being made by the order which is before the House this evening: they are amendments to the five principal Acts which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has explained very clearly to the House. Fortunately for me, the order was before the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 20th November and I was immensely reassured to read in the report of the proceedings of that committee that this order was in a sense a technical order. This has been confirmed and also the Minister has explained

1487
very clearly tonight that the effect of this order, together with the earlier instrument, will be very beneficial for the people of Northern Ireland. I am very pleased to give my support to the order.
I shall not detain the House for very long, but I should like to ask the Minister two straightforward questions. Is he able to tell the House when it is anticipated that this order, or the various parts of it, will come into force? I should also like to ask the Minister what consultations took place in Northern Ireland prior to the statutory instrument being tabled last August. If the Minister is able to throw light on those two matters, that would be helpful. I very much approve of this order.
Lord Beistead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his support for this order. I am also grateful to him for very kindly having given me notice of the two specific questions he wished to ask.
So far as the commencement of the order is concerned, as for the rest of the United Kingdom these amendments to the tax Acts will come into force on 6th April next year. The noble Lord asked about consultation. As is normal for new social security provisions, consultation was on a United Kingdom-wide basis. This was the parent legislation. The new benefits were first announced in the publication, The Way Ahead, which was widely distributed in January
1488
1990. That and the detailed proposals for the new benefits were made available to disabled persons' organisations, many of which I am pleased to say contributed useful suggestions.
We come back to where we started. In this order we are talking not about the benefits but about beneficial consequential tax changes which are parity measures to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to Neighbouring Land Bill [H.L.]
Lord Murton of Lindisfarne: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable persons who desire to carry out works to any land which are reasonably necessary for the preservation of that land to obtain access to neighbouring land in order to do so; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(Lord Murton of Lindisfarne.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Aire and Calder Navigation Bill
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nine minutes before nine o'clock.

  POLICE: ADDITIONAL POSTS
  POLICE: ADDITIONAL POSTS
  MR. ROBERT SERRY
  MR. ROBERT SERRY
  SOVIET UNION AND REPUBLICS: WESTERN SUPPORT POLICY
  SOVIET UNION AND REPUBLICS: WESTERN SUPPORT POLICY
  UN RULES OF RESTRAINT: STATUS
  UN RULES OF RESTRAINT: STATUS
  KURDS: DISASTER RELIEF
  KURDS: DISASTER RELIEF
  STUDENTS: SOCIAL SECURITY SUPPORT
  STUDENTS: SOCIAL SECURITY SUPPORT
  NON-DOMESTIC PROPERTY: REVALUATION
  NON-DOMESTIC PROPERTY: REVALUATION
  THE BLACK COUNTRY: CREDIT APPROVALS
  THE BLACK COUNTRY: CREDIT APPROVALS