Sitting of 8 December 1992

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

    Royal Free NHS Trust
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the work of the Royal Free NHS trust.
    The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We have received many favourable comments about the quality of patient care at the Royal Free NHS trust.
    Mr. Marshall: Has my hon. Friend seen the annual report of the Royal Free trust which serves many of my constituents and which can boast of a 9 per cent. increase in the number of in-patients treated, a substantial reduction in waiting lists and additional facilities for the mentally ill, victims of AIDS and the elderly? Is that not a record of which the Government and the trust can be justly proud?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will see that I, too, have a copy of the annual report which was issued this week. He will be pleased to know that I visited the Royal Free only yesterday and was able to learn at first hand of some of its successes as a trust. I endorse everything that my hon. Friend said, except that I would reverse the order—it is something of which the trust can rightly be proud and the Government also.
    Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that his previous reply will ring somewhat hollowly in the ears of my constituents in Hampstead and Highgate in the light of the news announced 10 days ago that operations at the Royal Free will have to be postponed due to the lack of funds from its central purchasing authority because of the news that the Royal Free will have to trim its budget by between 3 and 5 per cent., amounting to £4 million next year, which will mean that 16 beds will be lost to the national health service for ever? Far from solving a problem, trust status is creating a crisis.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Lady's point is far from the truth. I am pleased to be able to tell her that those responsible for the trust were yesterday in much more robust form and were looking forward with far greater enthusiasm to the success that they will continue to achieve, building on what they have already achieved. The hon. Lady's constituents will be pleased that activity at the Royal Free last year increased by 10 per cent.
    Mr. McCartney: Why does not the Minister of State tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about that particular trust? It has a hospital maintenance backlog of more than £18 million, two thirds of its staff accommodation fails statutory standards and it has legionella problems in the air-conditioning system, which have not been solved because of a lack of resources. By December, the trust will close at least three wards because of expenditure cuts in this year's budget, nurses are to be forced to work a 12-hour shift instead of an eight-hour shift because of the cuts, and vacancies will not be filled because of problems in the current budget cycle. In 1993–94 there is to be a 3 to 5 per cent. cut in the budget. That is a story not of success but of serious problems in the trust. The Minister should rethink and suggest real reasons why the trust is to be underfunded by £4 million next year.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I do not recognise the Royal Free trust from the information that the hon. Gentleman tried to give the House——
    Mr. Skinner: And he never took a breath.
    Dr. Mawhinney: It was a great performance.
    The Royal Free trust has managed to increase facilities for the elderly, including a new ward. It has increased facilities for the mentally ill and the elderly and introduced new facilities for those suffering from HIV and AIDS. It is treating more patients than ever before and plans to treat even more next year. If that is the hon. Gentleman's definition of failure, I hope that many more NHS hospitals are failures by his standards.

    Community Care
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the latest progress towards the implementation of the Government's proposals for community care.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): Good progress is being made by most local authorities in implementing the new arrangements. Where there are difficulties, we are offering help in a variety of ways, including our community care support force.
    Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a general welcome from all parties for the ring fencing of the substantial grant given for the implementation of care in the community. He will also be aware that Somerset has been especially singled out by a recent Audit Commission report for making excellent progress, in collaboration with the health authority, in preparing to implement the proposals. However, is my hon. Friend also aware of a matter about which I am in correspondence with him and other right hon. and hon. Friends, which is that Somerset feels that it has lost about £1·3 million of grant for having followed Government guidelines in giving the private sector proper scope in the administration of care in the community? Do I have my hon. Friend's assurance that he and his colleagues will carefully examine that matter?
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for ring fencing, which ensures that the very generous resources that the Government have provided for local authorities to deliver community care will reach their targets. My hon. Friend is a most vigorous champion of the interests of Somerset in all respects. I am, therefore,

    677
    aware of the particular difficulty to which he alludes. When Somerset county council entered into arrangements to ensure maximum participation by the independent sector in Somerset, it was aware of the likely arrangements for funding the new policy from next April. I shall continue to look into the matter most carefully.
    Ms. Jowell: Will the Minister confirm the guidance given by civil servants last week to health service managers that trusts are to be regarded by local authorities as part of the independent sector in purchasing community care? Will he make it clear to the House that he agrees that care for many elderly people will not now be free at the point of use and that their health care has been privatised by stealth?
    Mr. Yeo: There is absolutely no question of privatising the health care of any person, whether elderly or otherwise. As the hon. Lady really should know, a distinction has always been drawn between health care needs, which are met free of charge at the point of delivery to patients, and social care needs, for which we have never guaranteed that services would be delivered free. It is proper that all local authorities should make a charge for social services to those families who can afford to pay for them.
    I gladly confirm that, as part of our general programme of maximising participation by the independent sector and of giving all local authorities the best opportunity to meet the requirement that 85 per cent. of the transfer funds must be spent in the independent sector, NHS trusts will qualify as being part of the independent sector because they are not controlled, managed or owned by local authorities.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Children Act 1989 laid on social services departments the duty to take care of and to watch over children aged 16 who have left care? Is he aware that that is not being done and that children of 16 are not capable of managing by themselves? Will he look into that problem?
    Mr. Yeo: I am aware that, in terms of implementing the provisions of the Children Act—which require local authorities to prepare all children, from the day they enter care, for the moment when they leave care, and to befriend children up to the age of 21 after they have left care—and in terms of the powers they have to help children where necessary not only with cash payments, but with advice and general counselling, there has been some variation in the performance of local authorities in the year since the Act came into force.
    We are studying the matter and we have a research programme at Leeds university. We are also carrying out a careful survey of all local authorities to see exactly how they are implementing the Act. We shall study the information submitted to us and we shall include it in the report that we make to Parliament in the new year, as required by the Act.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister fully considered the implications of requiring a set quota of next year's community care funding to be spent in the independent sector, bearing in mind that independent sector domiciliary care is non-existent in many areas and that local authority domiciliary care faces cuts in 87 per cent. of councils, according to the directors of social services? Are
    678
    we not in danger of seeing more rather than fewer elderly and disabled people ending up in unnecessary private institutional care?
    Mr. Yeo: Absolutely not. I very much regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman continues to adhere to his party's traditional hostility towards the private sector in any form. What the policy will deliver, by replacing the awful alternative of a local authority monopoly in the provision of all social services, is higher standards and better value for money. Local authorities will have to contract with private and voluntary organisations, not only for the provision of residential or nursing home care but for domiciliary and day care services. We have an initiative in hand that is designed to encourage local authorities to work with the independent sector to develop innovative methods of delivering domiciliary care.

    Hip Replacement Operations
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacement operations were carried out (a) in 1979 and (b) in 1991.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The number of hip replacements climbed from 28,788 in 1979 to 44,477 in 1990–91, an increase of 54 per cent.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that those excellent figures are testimony to the improvements in the national health service over the past decade? Will he comment on the citizens charter where it is suggested that no one should wait more than 18 months for a hip replacement operation?
    Mr. Sackville: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that a target of 18 months has been set and that regional health authorities tell us that they are on target to meet that by April next year. I certainly agree that the operation is wonderful and that it has improved the quality of life of hundreds of thousands of people over the past 20 years.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that if he and his colleagues go ahead with the closure of London hospitals outlined in the Tomlinson report, waiting lists in inner London for elective surgery such as hip replacements are bound to grow? Is he aware also that the statistics quoted by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box about an excess of beds in London have proved to be unfounded? In the context of the Tomlinson report, is he further aware that London's general practitioners have come out unanimously against the closure of those great teaching hospitals?
    Mr. Sackville: I can only tell the hon. Lady that the evidence of the increase in efficiency with which hip operations are carried out all over the country is there for everyone to see. The number of orthopaedic surgeons has increased and the number of staff specialising in orthopaedics has increased from 2,000 to 2,400. It is a success story.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my hon. Friend congratulate the orthopaedic teams at Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency on the increased treatment that they are providing for patients in my area? Will he also assure the House and my constituents that when the £20 million capital programme proposed for Stoke Mandeville reaches

    679
    his Department, it will be treated sympathetically and with speed so that top-quality NHS treatment can be assured for my constituents?
    Mr. Sackville: I can confirm that. The temporary problems have been matched by a very sharp increase in activity at the hospital over the past year, including in orthopaedics.

    NHS Staff (Pay)
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the future of the pay review bodies dealing with the pay of NHS staff.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The remits for the review bodies have been amended for next year. Pay restraint will help us to improve services to patients. The review bodies have been asked to resume their full role for 1994–95.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State accept that that answer will be a great disappointment for those members of staff whose pay is subject to the decisions of a pay review body? The House will recall that in 1984 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer imposed a 3 per cent. pay limit on the public sector. Notwithstanding that pay limit, the nurses' pay review body recommended a 5 per cent. pay increase. The Government recognised the special case made for nurses and awarded that pay increase. Will the Secretary of State reassure the staff who are concerned about the matter that she will honour and respect the independence of the pay review bodies, fully restore their independence and allow them to make recommendations next year, based on the circumstances of the staff whom they look after?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The review bodies will have a continuing role. This Government introduced the review bodies for nurses and for doctors. Nurses had little to look for from the Labour party which was dominated by members of the National Union of Public Employees like the hon. Lady. When Labour was in power, nurses saw their pay cut by 3 per cent. in real terms. Their pay has been increased by 52 per cent. since this Government have been in power.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to all the regional health authority chairmen and district and family health services authority chairmen in some areas who have volunteered for a pay freeze next year? Does she agree that that sacrifice to help patients should be warmly applauded?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying a warm tribute to all of those regional chairmen who have agreed to take no increase in pay next year and the growing number of regional chairmen who have told me that their district health authority chairmen and FHSA chairmen have agreed that, as an act of leadership, they will take no increase in pay. Sir Donald Wilson, the chairman of Mersey regional health authority, is one such chairman who has made an act of commitment on his part and on the part of his chairmen.
    Mr. Wigley: Notwithstanding the pay restraint which the Government regrettably find necessary to impose, can the Secretary of State give an absolute assurance that such
    680
    restraints will not preclude the Government from meeting any recommendations for the dental service to get the service out of the total chaos in which it finds itself?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, this year the dentists received an increase of 8·5 per cent. from the review body. In addition, the system has overpaid an average of £5,000 a head. The review body was also able to agree an increase in expenses of 11 per cent.
    A review of dental remuneration is under way. We will consider that review carefully once it has been published. At the same time, the 1·5 per cent. overall envelope applies to dental practitioners as well as to others this year. It will be for the dental rate study group to decide how to translate that 1·5 per cent. into fees.

    "The Health of the Nation"
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the regional health authorities in taking forward the strategy outlined in "The Health of the Nation".
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The NHS is making excellent progress. Managers and professionals in hospitals, health authorities and primary health care teams are working together to achieve health improvement in the key areas and other local priority areas.
    The NHS is setting the pace for other organisations to follow.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Mid-Staffordshire group of hospitals on getting trust status? Will she confirm that being a trust means that no one in my constituency who goes to that group of hospitals will need to enter a building that is more than 10 years old? How does she intend to expand the scheme so that other parts of the country may enjoy trust status hospital treatment?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend. Like many other Members of Parliament, he, on behalf of his constituents, is seeing the benefits that trusts can bring. I am pleased to tell him that today I have accepted a further 121 expressions of interest in the fourth wave of NHS trusts. If all those applications are successful, 95 per cent. of hospital and community health service provision will be in the hands of trusts. That is good for the NHS and for the health of the nation.
    Ms. Lynne: Will the Secretary of State explain how the guidelines laid out in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper relating to mental health patients can be seen to be implemented when people such as Dr. Loucas, who was the subject of a "Cutting Edge" documentary on Channel 4 last night, are still allowed to practise? Despite repeated warnings from the Mental Health Act Commissioner about his activities, he still practises. Will she give an assurance that there will be a full inquiry and that the results of that inquiry will be made public?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady asked about the guidelines in the White Paper on mental health. Last year, 71 million working days were lost as a result of mental health problems. That is 14 per cent. of sickness absence,

    681
    and it accounts for 23 per cent. of the drug budget. The problems of mental illness that the nation faces are very serious and are certainly a priority.
    In relation to the case raised by the hon. Lady, the Mental Health Act Commission made it clear that progress had been made at the special hospital. As to the further allegations about Riverside health authority, further investigations and assurances are on their way.
    Mr. Sims: The successful implementation of the proposals laid out in "The Health of the Nation" involve not only my right hon. Friend's Department but a number of other Government Departments. What mechanism exists to ensure co-ordination between Government Departments? To what extent is that co-ordination reflected at regional and health authority level?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I assure my hon. Friend that there is a Cabinet Committee, under the chairmanship of the Lord President of the Council, which oversees progress in meeting the targets in "The Health of the Nation". That committee met last week, and further progress was made. At regional level, there is a particular officer to take progress forward, and it is subject to the management review.
    There will be a series of regional conferences in the new year to ensure that all parties to a healthy alliance are able to contribute. Only by different agencies working together will we achieve the real improvements in health that underlie our health strategy.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State accept that her answer this afternoon about the revelations made by The Independent and the Channel 4 "Cutting Edge" programme about Dr. Kypros Loucas shows that the Department is unwilling to act on a series of recommendations made by, first, the Mental Health Act Commission and, secondly, interested parties who have expressed grave concerns to the Department and Ministers about the activities of Dr. Loucas not merely at Broadmoor but at Horton general hospital and subsequently as an employee, at present at Wormwood Scrubs? Is the Secretary of State telling the House this afternoon that hormone experiments of a kind practised by Dr. Mengele, the application of electro-convulsive therapy without anaesthetic and the overdosing of patients' drugs are practices which her Department is willing to countenance? In what way does the right hon. Lady recommend that the powerless in our society protect themselves from the powerful in high places?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I have already informed the House that the Mental Health Act Commission commented on the position at Broadmoor in 1989; at that stage, it said that progress had been made in the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That was the year in which the doctor involved left Broadmoor. We are carrying out further investigations with Riverside health authority into the subsequent events at Horton general hospital. We have also drawn the attention of the General Medical Council to the programme.

    Fund-holding Practices
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to meet representatives of the National Association of Fundholding Practices to review their progress.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I met representatives of the National Association of Fundholding Practices on 18 November when we discussed the significant benefits that fund holding is bringing to patients. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that I shall also address the second annual conference of the National Association of Fundholding Practices tomorrow.
    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the success of the fund-holding practices and in particular the way in which they have played their part in reducing waiting lists throughout the nation? Will she welcome the way in which we have brought down waiting lists since 1979?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly warmly commend the fund-holding practices and the national health service generally for the progress that they have made in reducing waiting lists. The Labour party said that we would never meet the targets for waiting lists, just as it said that we would never meet the targets on immunisation or cancer screening. We have met all those targets and, indeed, beaten them. But the contribution of fund-holding practices goes much wider than tackling waiting lists; it concerns the quality of care, the integration of primary and secondary care and the dramatic progress in bringing down the cost of drugs.
    Mr. Burden: Given what the Secretary of State has said, what advice would she give to my constituent, Mr. Kitching, whose general practitioner referred him for an appointment because he might require surgery to his knee, in which he had arthritis? He was told in January this year that the waiting list for an appointment was about 91 weeks. Last month, he received a further letter telling him that he might have to wait another 13 weeks. Would the Secretary of State say to Mr. Kitching that that is an appropriate or reasonable time to wait? If she would, why is she also considering shutting the royal orthopaedic hospital in Birmingham, which could provide Mr. Kitching with the treatment that he needs?
    Mrs. Bottomley: All are agreed that there is more for the national health service to do. All are agreed, I hope, that remarkable progress has been made in reducing long waiting times. We hope to set an out-patient target under the patients charter initiative. However, it is not by avoiding difficult decisions that further progress for patients is made. It is certainly the case that GP fund holders have pioneered innovative treatments and care of their patients which others have been able to follow.
    Mr. Rathbone: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance on the way in which fund holders have improved the services that they offer to patients—rather than having to send them to hospital, for example—in analyses for diabetes or cholesterol?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Indeed, there are numerous practical examples of the ways in which fund holders have developed new services, either by inviting consultants to undertake out-patient work at their practices—by way of a treat and teach model—by pioneering different ways to deal with diagnostic assessments, or by the organisation of a contract with the local hospital, which other general practitioners have followed. The point is that GP fund

    683
    holders have been able to push forward the frontiers and to demonstrate new models of practice, which can then be spread widely within the NHS.
    Ms. Primarolo: When the Secretary of State speaks to the National Association of Fundholding Practices tomorrow will she make it clear that the House is appalled at the massive profits that GP fund holders are making out of the national health service? We consider it scandalous that practices can make £190,000 or £280,000 in profit from fund holding when cash-starved hospitals are freezing waiting lists. Will she ensure that that money is returned in full to the district health authorities, so that it can be spent on patient care, especially the care of those on long waiting lists?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Yes, we see the two-facedness of the Opposition. They profess to believe in primary care, but when we find a way to mobilise it so that GPs can act on behalf of their patients, they say that they dislike it. I suspect that at the next election the Leader of the Opposition will say that fund holding is another policy with which he agreed, but that he did not think that he could face up to telling his party that he supported it. Fund holders are saving 4 per cent. in their fund-holding work. The point is that that money can be invested in the practice, to make further improvements in primary care.
    Mr. Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that two practices in my constituency are now fund holding—at Longfield and at Dartford East—and that they are both working extremely well, to the benefit of patient care? Is she also aware that my Labour opponent at the last election is a general practitioner in a practice in Bexleyheath, which is in the fourth wave of applications for fund-holding status?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am delighted to hear that information from my hon. Friend. I very much hope that in spite of the mischievous and often wilfully misleading comments of the Opposition, sensible GPs who put their patients' interests first will see the advantages of fund holding for themselves and for the progress that it can encourage throughout the NHS.

    Elderly Population
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates she has made of the impact of the growing elderly population on health expenditure; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Yeo: It is estimated that slightly under 0·5 per cent. growth in resources will be required in the hospital and community health services next year to take account of all demographic changes. That is much less than the estimated increase of at least 2·5 per cent. in hospital and community health activity which we expect the national health service to achieve as a result of the £1 billion extra funding announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Milburn: Why has planned spending on the NHS been cut by 2·3 per cent. in real terms for next year, when the Minister acknowledges that the growth in the elderly population requires an increase of at least 0·5 per cent. simply to stand still? Is it not a fact that his failure to take account of the growth in the numbers of elderly people
    684
    when setting the health budget means that there will be real cuts in patient care next year? What is his message to my constituents, who face yet another year when health budgets will be squeezed as a result of his Department's failure to make available growth funding to my health authority in Darlington? When will the Government come clean about the real shortfall in NHS expenditure?
    Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that after such a short time here the hon. Gentleman has succumbed to the Opposition obsession with inputs rather than outputs. The statistics of interest to elderly people are those that show what the health service is doing for them, such as the 54 per cent. rise since 1979 in the annual total of hip replacement or the 91 per cent. increase in the number of elderly people treated as in-patients.
    But if the hon. Gentleman wants a battle about inputs, I remind him that spending on the health service has risen by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979—upfrom 4·6 per cent. of gross domestic product to 5·7 per cent.—and that for the first time in British history, under the present Government, more taxpayers' money is being spent on health than on defence.
    Mr. Dickens: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the elderly of today are most fortunate because they live under a national health service which has developed medical techniques unthought of years ago, with drugs beyond their wildest dreams being available? I look forward to immortality. I warn the Opposition of that.
    Mr. Yeo: I am sure that, with the benefit of the NHS, my hon. Friend will achieve his goal of immortality. I agree with the points he makes, but there are others of importance too, not least the relevance of the patients charter to elderly people. That has now set maximum waiting times for hip replacements, knee replacements, cataracts and a whole range of other treatments which are of great relevance in delivering even higher quality health care to our elderly population.

    Provider Units (Targets)
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to improve performance in those provider units that are not reaching targets specified in the patients charter.
    Mr. Sackville: Regional health authorities are accountable to the NHS management executive, through contracts, for their districts' performance and for taking aciton to ensure that problems are remedied. It is for health authorities, as purchasers, to ensure that providers' performance on patients charter activity meet the standards set in contracts. Authorities must, therefore, take action where performance falls below standard.
    Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that there are in my constituency people who have been waiting for 54 weeks at King George's hospital and 66 weeks at Barking hospital for orthopaedic operations, while others have been waiting for up to 35 weeks to see a female gynaecologist? Is he further aware that since the present Secretary of State took office, 130 additional people per day have been added to waiting lists and that in the North-East Thames region there has been an increase of 2·1 per cent. in the number

    685
    of people on the waiting list for up to one year and 3·9 per cent. in total? It is a disgrace that the Government should be doing nothing to reduce waiting lists.
    Mr. Sackville: I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember that activity on in-patients has gone up by 32 per cent. in recent years in Redbridge, that it has gone up by 15 per cent. for day cases and that there is a £58 million hospital development at Goodmayes, the largest in the whole of the North East Thames region.
    Mr. Tredinnick: In connection with homoeopathy, given the importance and popularity of alternative and complementary medicine, does the Minister agree that it would be an important addition to the patients charter to set standards for health authorities to implement ways in which patients might obtain those benefits? Does he recall that his predecessor, the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, said that the alternative disciplines could be paid for through the NHS if the necessary powers were delegated and responsibility was taken by GPs?
    Mr. Sackville: Under our system, purchasers, whether health authorities or fund holders, have greater opportunity to decide on the treatment that they consider to be appropriate. I have no doubt that complementary medicine will be given all proper consideration.
    Mr. Turner: How does the patients charter relate to dermatology patients at the Royal hospital, Wolverhampton, who had to occupy their ward last weekend to prevent it from being closed at weekends to save cash? How does that relate to the rights of patients?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman knows that health authorities must monitor the standard set locally by providers. They will all be required to publish annually a report showing how those performance standards have been met.

    Fund-holding Practices
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress towards adoption by general practitioners of fund-holding status.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of how general practitioners' interest in the fund-holding initiative has changed since the scheme began.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am pleased to report growing interest and support for fund holding amongst GPs, who are realising the benefits that it brings patients. By April 1993, more than 1,000 practices will have joined the fund-holding schemes, covering one in four of the population.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in High Peak every GP practice eligible for fund-holding status has achieved it or applied for it? Is not that a clear demonstration that even if the Opposition fail to realise the benefits of fund-holding status, doctors who are most in touch with their patients' needs clearly do?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. It shows that GPs have been listening to their patients and probably also to their Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Gill: Notwithstanding the massive amounts of additional money which the Government continue to pump into the national health service, does my hon. Friend agree that the efficiency savings made by GP fund holders are extremely valuable because they free resources so that more patients may be treated?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are concerned that more patients should receive high-quality treatment from the record amount of resources made available. It is a matter of regret that others do not take the same view.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that, in cutting down waiting lists, GP fund holders will not be able to get privileges for their patients by paying extra to NHS trusts and gaining access to hospitals? If he will not give that assurance, he stands convicted of establishing a two-tier system in the NHS, which is supposed to be a service open to all, free at the point of use. One tier will be for GP fund holders' patients and another will be for the rest.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows, but will not accept, that clear rules have already been agreed with representatives of the medical profession. Those rules preclude a contract being set if it will disadvantage other patients. The hon. Gentleman has been told that before and he must simply accept it.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: If and when GP fund holders overspend, who pays?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman asked me a similar question last time. He will recall that I told him that there was some imprecision in the early stages of setting GP fund holders' budgets. I told him that, in a few cases, GP fund holders had to go back to the region to have their base budgets adjusted in the light of experience. The reverse of that coin is also true. We are discussing with some GP fund holders the return of some of the money which they received from the similar imprecise setting of their budgets. He will be pleased to know that we are doing that with the full support of the National Association of Fundholding Practices.

    North East Thames Region
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will announce a target date for the full implementation of capitation funding for the allocation of resources for the NHS districts within North East Thames health region.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will today be announcing revenue allocations for regional health authorities for 1993–94. They will include a real increase of 0·4 per cent. for North East Thames and other Thames regions, even though they are above their weighted capitation share. That is primarily to allow progress towards weighted capitation for their districts. Allocations to districts are the responsibility of regional health authorities, but progress in the Thames regions is closely related to the reconfiguration of health services in London. My right hon. Friend will be making an announcement about this after the recess, and North East Thames regional health authority will then be in a better position to set targets.
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Tomlinson report is important, not just for the improvement of primary health care in the capital, but to ensure a fairer share of resources in the outer regions such as my constituency? Will my hon. Friend comment on the discussion paper on capitation funding published by the North East Thames regional health authority in November?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Tomlinson report is about the reconfiguration of health care in London. On my hon. Friend's second point, my understanding is that, after consultation, the North East Thames regional health authority decided to review the information in the consultation document, with the prospect, I hope and am led to believe, of seeking to do better by those districts that are still disadvantaged in terms of weighted capitation. I know that that will be of some reassurance to m y hon. Friend.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Ms. Hoey: Does the Prime Minister agree that the present 999 emergency service is highly efficient, flexible and adaptable? Will he assure the House and the thousands of people lobbying Parliament today that he will put his foot down and stop the Oftel report which will—if its proposals are implemented—destroy the system and endanger the lives of millions of citizens?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that, generally, over the years, the present system has been efficient, although, as the hon. Lady will know, there have been drawbacks, which have been brought to people's attention from time to time. The consultants' report will be carefully considered by all the interested parties. I give great consideration to ensuring that the new arrangements will at least maintain, and preferably improve, the current high standard of response to calls. If the hon. Lady has specific propositions to put, I know that the director general of Oftel will be happy to receive them.
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Lait: While recognising that my right hon. Friend will be under enormous pressure at Edinburgh from our European Community partners to give ground on the rebate, may I tell him that he will have the total support of Conservative Members in resisting any such pressure?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her mention of the Edinburgh summit. There is no doubt that a large number of complex things are to be decided at Edinburgh—the enlargement negotiations are difficult, the
    688
    future finance negotiations will undoubtedly need a good deal more work and we are committed to finding, if we can, a satisfactory conclusion to the Danish problems. What is quite clear, as I told the House last week, is that there can be no change in the British abatement to the budget.
    Mr. John Smith: On the issue of the Edinburgh summit, at a time when unemployment is rising faster in Britain than in any other country in the Community, should not a programme of jobs and recovery be at the top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit? Why did the Prime Minister not even mention that in his reply?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased to know that there will be a discussion among the Heads of Government on the European economic situation, and Britain, as President, specifically invited the Finance Ministers to Edinburgh. The economy has been a main topic of discussion at all the meetings that we have had in Europe in recent months, and a team of Treasury officials has been travelling throughout Europe to co-ordinate positions. I very much hope that co-ordinated measures will emerge from those discussions, but we shall have to wait to see what our partners feel at Edinburgh this weekend.
    Mr. John Smith: Does not the Prime Minister understand that the obligations of being President of the Community entail more than chairing interesting discussions; that it is action that is required? Why have all the suggestions—increased support for research and development, more investment facilities for the European investment bank, infrastructure projects in transport and other areas, and emergency action on unemployment—come from others and nothing from the President of the Community?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is characteristically mistaken, as he will find from the presidency paper that has been placed for discussion this weekend. On the subject of action during the presidency, he has clearly overlooked the agreement sought for a long time between the United States and the Community on agriculture, the fact that agreement has now been reached on more than 50 single market measures, which means that we will be able to declare the single market open as at the end of this year, the resolution on making the single market work, the London conference on Yugoslavia, and the preparations for enlargement; and he has overlooked, or chosen to overlook, a great deal more as well.
    Mr. John Smith: Why, in that litany, did not the Prime Minister mention unemployment? Why has no action been taken before now? Why was unemployment not on the agenda for the Birmingham summit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that when 750 manufacturing jobs are being lost each working day in this country it is high time action was taken? His presidency will be condemned for gross inaction.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is desperately trying to recover his European gloss after the shameful way in which he and his colleagues have been behaving over the Maastricht Bill. As for providing opportunities for growth and jobs, he might hear in mind that we have the lowest corporation tax in the

    689
    Community or the G7, the lowest interest rates in the Community, inflation down well below 4 per cent., low direct taxation, exports at record levels, car production growing, and retail sales growing—the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not like any of this because it shows what we have done and how things are going to change.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend will be aware that since the autumn statement and the abolition of car tax, car sales since last October have increased by 22 per cent that Honda has created another 1,100 jobs at Swindon, Nissan has created another 1,800 jobs at Sunderland and that Toyota is about to create a great many more jobs in Derby. Is not that excellent news for the car industry in particular and the economy in general? [Interruption.] Does it not demonstrate that low taxation boosts consumer demand, whereas the high-taxation policies of the Opposition destroy jobs?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is learning that Opposition Members are not too keen on hearing good news—no doubt we shall hear a good deal more of that in the months to come.
    People sometimes forget how far the motor car industry has come since the early 1970s. It was then a national disgrace; the trade unions wrecked it day in, day out. The fact that it has come so far is a great tribute to the work force, to the management and to the legislation passed by successive Conservative Governments.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Given that the Prime Minister was elected, in his own words, to create a nation more at ease with itself, how does he reconcile that objective with the fact that between 3 million and 4 million people are unemployed in this country, with the number still rising, and that more than 17 million people are unemployed in the European Community? At the end of two years of his premiership and six months as President of the European Community, does he believe that he has succeeded in achieving the target that he set himself so few months ago? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman has ceased being heckled by Opposition Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway, I will try to answer him. As he knows, I set out a programme for a full Parliament. He will be able to criticise if we do not realise our objectives by the end of this Parliament, by when he will see that we will have achieved them.
    Mr. Harris: My right hon. Friend made some welcome remarks about doing away with excessive and bureaucratic regulations in this country. Will he perhaps start by looking at the regulations on meat hygiene and inspection which pose a real threat to small and medium-sized slaughterhouses in this country and, although a welcome start has been made, will he carry that even further?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I have asked my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade to co-ordinate a considered examination right across the Government, local government and the European Community on the extent of regulations. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the specific examples which my hon. Friend mentions.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister been briefed on the murder of the British journalist Jonathan Moyle in Santiago and, if so, what is his response to the Chilean judge charged with the investigation of the murder, that his investigation was obstructed by the unwillingness of British officials to co-operate? How does the Prime Minister explain British officials briefing the press that Mr. Moyle died while masturbating when he was murdered by a lethal injection in the heel? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is any link with the fact that Jonathan Moyle was investigating the arms trade of Carlos Cardoen, the main arms procurer for Iraq, who was responsible for the transmission of Matrix Churchill equipment and was also the associate of Mark Thatcher?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a series of unsubstantiated comments to which he knows I have no intention whatever of replying. If the hon. Member has detailed evidence that he believes should be examined he should take it to the proper authorities.
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Sir John Hannam: My right hon. Friend will recall the meeting he had recently with hon. Members from the south-west when he was made aware of the particular problems of differential electricity and water charges. Has he seen the latest survey by Exeter chamber of commerce which shows that 60 per cent. of businesses there have increased their sales in the past three months, that 25 per cent. are expecting to increase their labour force and that only 4 per cent. to reduce their labour force? Will he continue his efforts to reduce the regulatory burdens which bear down on business expansion?
    The Prime Minister: The figures that my hon. Friend mentions are encouraging and I am grateful to him and my other hon. Friends for the comments they made to me recently. I fully accept how important all those factors are to the prosperity of the west country, but they have similar importance for the economy of other parts of the country as well. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be doing all that we can to lift the burden from all companies—large, medium and small.
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Raynsford: What has the Prime Minister to say to the thousands of parents of children in Greenwich who are deeply concerned at the adverse effect of Government-imposed cuts on the standards of education for their children in schools in Greenwich? Why have this Government failed entirely to respond to the concerns expressed in the signatures of thousands in the petition that I presented a few weeks ago? Why have they not bothered to make any observations on that petition or to those concerned?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind which Government published information about what is happening in schools and how children are being taught and what their results are. When he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are prepared to release that sort of information he might be in a position to issue such pious lectures.

    Single Currency
    Mr. Sweeney: To ask the Prime Minister whether the establishment of a single currency within the union remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: The Government believe that it is too soon to consider whether or not the United Kingdom should move to a single currency. The United Kingdom is not obliged or committed to such a move and no decision to move to a single currency will be made without the specific approval of Parliament.
    Mr. Sweeney: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that under article 109J of the treaty we shall be driven inexorably towards a single currency whether we want it or not?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. As my hon. Friend knows, we have a specific provision that will enable us at an appropriate time to decide whether or not we take part in a single currency. That provision does not prevent us from preparing with our Community partners for their move into a single currency, but we remain uncommitted until and unless the House decides that we should move into one.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that this is a closed question.

    Engagements
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if' he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: In view of the Prime Minister's stated commitment to defend this nation's heritage, will he and his colleagues call for a moratorium on all supermarket developments in green-field sites and launch an investigation into their value, compared with the amount of heritage that is lost under the concrete and car parks of supermarket development? The right hon. Gentleman can start the survey with Meadowhead in Sheffield.
    The Prime Minister: Such matters must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, as they have been in the past, are now, and should continue to be in future.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you can help me with a point of procedure. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that the Select Committee on Health intends to publish its document on national health service trusts on 16 December. I have documented evidence showing that someone on that Committee intends to make that confidential report available a few days before—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. This is important. Will those hon. Members who are remaining in the Chamber please do so quietly? I need to hear the hon. Lady. I understand that she is telling me that a confidential document is to be made available.
Mrs. Mahon: I have documented evidence, Madam Speaker, that that report, which is a confidential document, will be made available a few days before the Select Committee decided that it should be made available. Last Wednesday, the Select Committee decided that the document should be made available 24 hours before the press conference.
The purpose of my point of order is to ask for your ruling on that latest leak from the Select Committee, which already has a case before the Select Committee on Privileges. I believe that the Health Select Committee's procedures are being abused, and I would like your ruling.
Madam Speaker: From what I heard of the hon. Lady's remarks—and I find it difficult to hear across a noisy Chamber—the matter to which she referred is not one with which I am familiar. It sounds as though there is some contempt involved, and I ask the hon. Lady to write to me without delay, when I will certainly consider her point.
Mrs.Audrey Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to a different aspect, though one also related to the Health Select Committee's report. Will she confirm that the purpose of Select Committees is to monitor the Government's work, and will she consider——
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady referring to me when she uses the word "she"?
Mrs. Wise: I apologise, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that the purpose of a Select Committee is to monitor the work of a Government Department, and will you consider and advise us on whether the desperate eagerness being shown by the Government to obtain the report in order immediately to rebut it illustrates that they have no intention of giving the Select Committee's recommendations the careful consideration that it is the Government's duty to give them? Is it not a fact that the Government must reply to a Select Committee report within two months but that the Government intend to reply within two minutes? Is that not illustrative of the Government's complete contempt for the Select Committee system?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady has raised matters that must be taken up in that Committee or with Ministers. They are not breaches of our Standing Orders or our procedures at this stage. On the first point made by the
694
hon. Lady, of course it is the task of the Select Committees to investigate as thoroughly as possible the workings of the appropriate Government Department.
Mrs. Barbara Roche: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Late this morning I received an emergency telephone call from a constituent who had a friend who was due to arrive in this country this evening from Lagos. The friend had been refused a visitor's visa by the British high commission in Lagos. I telephoned the high commission in Lagos and was informed that the second secretary refused to take my call. Is that not contempt of the House and obstruction of the work of Members of Parliament?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady alleges that she is being obstructed in her work as a Member of Parliament. If that is what she believes, it may well be a question of privilege and she should write to me immediately.
Mr. D. N. CampbellSavours: Do you, Madam Speaker, concur that, if the Health Select Committee has taken a decision in deliberative session not to release its report until 24 hours before it is due to be published, no member of that Committee is in a position to reveal the report's contents to any member of the press or of the Government? Will you confirm that?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members put matters to me which are not points of order on which I cannot rule and of which I have no knowledge other than what has been said to me across the Floor of the House. It is unfair for them to expect the Speaker of the House to rule on matters on which he has no information or knowledge whatsoever.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is with some trepidation that I raise a point of order further to the issue of the Health Select Committee, but can you, Madam Speaker, advise me whether it is in order for our proceedings at a deliberative meeting of the Select Committee to be regarded as confidential so that no member of the press should be aware of those proceedings?
Madam Speaker: Of course; I would have thought that every hon. Member was aware that hearings in a deliberative form are confidential to that Committee. Are there any more points of order?
Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have noticed that twice this afternoon during questions there was a failure in the amplification system in the House. On two occasions when hon. Members were speaking the microphones were not open and it was extremely difficult to hear. I have formed the opinion in the course of the last six months that the present amplification system in the Chamber is not a patch on the old one. We were told that the present microphones were of greater sensitivity, but either the microphones are not well placed or they are not being well operated. Could this matter be looked into?
Mrs. Edwina Currie rose——
Madam Speaker: Is it further to that point of order?
Mrs. Currie: Yes, Madam Speaker. Is the problem not with the microphones but with the fact that so many hon. Members look alike, which causes difficulties for the

695
operator? Surely, if there were more women in the House who all looked different, the operators would have no trouble.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady would not expect me to agree that there are any look-alikes in the House. But, in all seriousness, our equipment has been improved. Inquiries and investigations into it are still being made. I have no problem whatsoever, because I have my own equipment here, but I will have the matter looked into.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask, with what I hope is customary politeness, when you decided to advise the House of a closed question during Prime Minister's Question Time, and whether you intend to continue the practice?
Madam Speaker: It is not my practice to advise the House of a closed question, but I happen to think that, when a question is as closed as the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter of courtesy to remind the hon. Member who is on his feet. Hon. Members often forget that questions are closed, and I think that it is preferable to avoid embarrassment.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, nowadays I am very reluctant to rise on a point of order; the House is noisy enough without me. Nevertheless, I have to say—and I have been saying it for years—that, since the introduction of these damned television cameras and the related hearing equipment, the whole purpose of the engineering control is to avoid any interference with the television output by our own bits of equipment, as you call them. That is the problem: the primary consideration is the audience outside, and hon. Members can go hang if they cannot hear.
Madam Speaker: That was a most interesting comment.

Points of Order

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
  That the Matter of public expenditure in Scotland. being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration—[Mr. MacKay.]
  Question agreed to.

Plain Language
3.41 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I have no problem with either the technology or the amplification, Madam Speaker.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure improvements to the language and layout of certain contracts.
Language is what disinguishes the human race; it is the characteristic that sets us apart and makes us unique. Even I, as an ardent animal lover, must acknowledge that, however eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell us that his parents were poor but honest. Language makes us unique, and we in this country are born with the privilege of having a unique language as our parent tongue—English, the richest language in the history of humanity.
Our language is rich precisely because it is not pure. Emerson called it
"the sea which receives tributaries from every region under heaven."
It is the language of Chaucer and the King James Bible; of Keats, Joyce, Anthony Trollope and Anthony Burgess. It has taken 2,000 years to reach this far—and where is it now, in 1992? Let me show you, Madam Speaker, by quoting from the terms of sale offered by that excellent builders' merchant, Jewson Ltd:
"If and to the extent that any person by whom the Seller has been supplied with the goods supplied hereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the Supplier') validly excludes restricts or limits his liability to the Seller in respect of the said goods or of any loss or damage arising in connection therewith the liability of the Seller to the Buyer in respect of the said goods or of any loss or damage arising in connection therewith shall be correspondingly excluded restricted or limited."
There you have it, Madam Speaker: the English language today—and those were just five of more than 100 such lines that feature on the back of the Jewson delivery note. When the driver drops off the breeze block and says, "Sign here, guy", what I have just read out constitutes 5 per cent. of what the recipient is agreeing to—whether he likes it or not, and whether he understands it or not.
Does it matter? Yes, I believe that it does. It cannot be good that people regularly sign contracts that they do not understand, and, indeed, are not meant to understand.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Brandreth: As it happens, I have and I understood it, but I can understand that it might be a little sophisticated for the hon. Gentleman. However, the rest of this is in plain English, so he will feel wholly at home.
Costly mistakes can be made. A constituent of mine discovered that when he signed an incomprehensible contract to lease a photocopier. When he wanted to change the photocopier, he was faced with the option of a so-called settlement charge of about £10,000, which was three times the value of the original equipment, or the prospect of leasing the equipment, whose lifetime according to the manufacturer was three years, for a total of seven years. None of that was clear from the contract whose wording was deliberately obfuscatory and arcane. [Interruption.] Translation will come later!
The Bill is designed to encourage the use of clear, plain language in commercial contracts and to prevent the unscrupulous, arrogant or incompetent from hiding

697
behind legalese, jargon, gobbledegook or small print. It would apply to consumer contracts, consumer credit contracts—think of all the confusion that we would all be spared if we understood the small print that comes with our Access cards—and housing contracts.
The plain language that I have in mind is not so much the language of Shakespeare as that of Dickens, not William Shakespeare but Geoffrey Dickens—clear, no-nonsense language that says what it means and means what it says, language that is indeed a lean, mean fighting machine.
A plain language law might appear to be a contradiction in terms because is it not the law and lawyers which are responsible for much of the gobbledegook found in contracts? I believe I am right in saying that in 1595 an English Chancellor chose to make an example of a particularly wordy document filed in his court. He ordered a hole to be cut in the centre of the document—all 120 pages of it—and had the author's head stuffed through it. The offender was then led around Westminster hall, 100 yards from where we are now—even 100 metres—as an example to all and sundry. Alas, that Elizabethan lesson did not stick; and that is where I come in, four centuries later but not a moment too soon.
I propose that the contracts covered by the Bill should be written in clear and readily understandable language using words with common and every-day meanings, be arranged in a logical order, be suitably divided into paragraphs and headings, be clearly laid out and be easily legible.
It is not asking much, but you, Madam Speaker, might well ask, "Why do people sign contracts they don't understand?" Often it is because they are in no position to negotiate. Most consumer contracts are in standard form, drawn up by the supplier and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The Bill would help consumers. It would also help businesses because those which have taken voluntary steps in the right direction have learnt that clear contracts have advantages and that intelligible contracts promote customers' trust and loyalty and encourage consumers to stick to their contracts. They also achieve savings in management and staff time. The new law would encourage better practice and, if necessary, would enforce it, although the sanctions that I propose are moderate.
The experience in the United States is that a plain language law such as this would immediately improve practice and standards, but, if a contract did not comply with the Act, the party which made the contract in the course of business would be liable to an action for damages brought by the other party—so there is also something in this for the lawyers.
That said, there is no question of any form of criminal penalty. Offending contracts would not be void, unenforceable or voidable. I propose compensation for the consumer who can show actual loss and, in some cases, a small sum of additional damages. I also propose, as back-up, an extension of the existing powers of the Director General of Fair Trading to deal directly with businesses which ignore the new law.
The case for such a law is overwhelming. Clear, coherent, easy-to-read consumer contracts bring advantages to consumers and to business, but the signs of voluntary implementation are piecemeal. I believe that, as
698
in the United States, the chief merit of the new law would be its impetus for change. Alas, only legislation will prompt businesses to sit up and start to take notice of their own paperwork.
I trust that the advantages of the Bill will be obvious to the House. Inevitably, some people will not see its virtues, but then, as the saying has it, a slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic to an equine quadruped utterly devoid of visionary capacity.
3.50 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall not detain the House unduly, but I think that a protest must be made against the linguistic chauvinism of the speech by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). He referred to English being the mother tongue of all hon. Members, ignoring the native British languages which were spoken in this country when the speakers of Anglo-Saxon were howling, pagan barbarians.
If I were to speak in the language of this country, and if I were to say to you, Madam Speaker:
"When that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote"——
Madam Speaker: Order. I would respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is not understood in this House.
Mr. Flynn: With respect, Madam Speaker, it is in order because the language I am speaking is English. It is the English of Chaucer, to which the hon. Member for City of Chester referred. If I went on to quote in the beautiful language of Chaucer, I should be incomprehensible to you, Madam Speaker, and to every other hon. Member. I am allowed to use the language of Chaucer, but I am not allowed to use the language of Wales, which is understood by many people.
This is the only Parliament that Wales has, yet the language of Wales, the language of Scotland and the ancient language of Ireland are forbidden here. There are Parliaments that conduct their business in a dozen languages. I make that point because of the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester. His Bill called for plain English, but it should also call for plain Welsh, plain Gaelic and plain Irish Gaelic.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. David Willetts, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Roger Moate, Ms. Liz Lynne, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Roger Evans, Mr. Rod Richards, Ms. Joan Walley and Ms. Glenda Jackson.

Plain Language
  PLAIN LANGUAGE
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to secure improvements to the language and layout of certain contracts And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Unemployment
  Madam Speaker: I must tell the House that t have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the rising tide of unemployment with its intolerable cost to the British people; notes with concern the high level of redundancies in British manufacturing industry, the falling level of job vacancies, and the steep increase in the number of long-term unemployed; condemns the Government's Autumn Statement for its total failure to tackle the jobs crisis at a time when unemployment in Britain is rising faster than anywhere else in the European Community and is forecast to rise above 3 million once again; regrets the continued neglect of training and investment in skills which are essential to the modern economy; and further condemns the Government for squandering the opportunities of the British Presidency to develop a strategy for growth and employment for the whole of the European Community.
  In plain language, in Britain today more than 4 million people are out of work. That is the real figure reflecting what is really happening to real people in the hard, real world of Britain today—a Britain in which 20 million working days are lost every week through unemployment. What a waste!
  The Government do not publish the real figures. Instead, every month they churn out the official figures, reduced now by no fewer than 30 successive statistical fiddles. That shoddy process may reduce the embarrassment of Tory Ministers, but it does not reduce the job queues or the pain of unemployment.
  Even if we take the Government's own figures, the rising tide of unemployment is there for all to see, to feel and to fear. Last month, there were 2,868,000 of our fellow citizens officially out of work. More than 30 unemployed people were chasing every job vacancy, with no fewer than 70 people chasing every job vacancy in London. Almost 1 million people had been out of work for more than a year. Some quarter of a million of the people out of work were young people who face the worst job prospects in our country's history. As we all know, there is worse to come. Parts of the country that once seemed almost immune to unemployment are now suffering as badly as the worst.
  After the job losses of the past two years, there are now fewer than 4·5 million people employed in manufacturing industry in Britain. Just 4·5 million people are left making things in a country with a population of 57 million. However, the Government do not seem to care. For years, they have been prepared to let British industry be wiped out, in the fond belief that the people of Britain could earn a living by selling one another hamburgers and insurance policies. Even the hamburger joints and the insurance companies are in trouble now.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, not at the moment.
  700
  The Tories keep saying that if an industry is not paying its way, it should be closed down. It is a good job for us that the rest of the world does not think like that, because, under the Tories, Britain is not paying its way. By the standards that the Tories have set, the Bundesbank would be sending in the brokers' men.
  The Tories used to claim that the factories that were closing were in rust-bucket industries which were bound to close. There was some truth in that, but it is not true any more. The 500,000 manufacturing jobs that have gone in the past two years are mainly from modern, high-tech industries with highly skilled work forces—the industries of the future if we are to have an industrial future.
  For far too long, far too many people have been without a job. When one loses one's job, one loses one's income and becomes dependent on benefits, if one is entitled to them. However, people who lose their jobs do not lose just their money. They can also lose their self-respect, sense of worth and purpose in life. People without a job are beset by an awful feeling that they no longer matter. Unemployment can lead to the break-up of marriages and to separation, divorce and domestic violence.
  However, the harm caused by unemployment does not stop there. Unemployment damages the health of the jobless and their families. If one is out of a job one's mental and physical health deteriorates. Unemployment does not just make people ill. In plain English, unemployment kills and maims. It kills mainly by cancer, suicide, accidents and violence. For a middle-aged man to lose his job doubles his chances of dying in the next 10 years. Unemployment does not just kill the jobless it kills their wives, husbands and children—born and unborn. What a wicked waste.
  The cost of unemployment is not just borne by the jobless and their families. The Secretary of State admitted recently that it costs the taxpayer £9,000 a year to keep someone out of work. That is £9,000 in benefits paid out and tax not taken it. Even according to the official figures, the present mass unemployment is costing taxpayers £25 billion this year. That is equal to more than £1,000 for every family in the land. What a waste.
  It does not end there. When people are out of work, they are not producing anything. Back at work, they could produce goods and services which would add to the country's wealth. if just the 10 per cent. who are officially jobless were back at work, they would produce goods and services worth more than £50 billion. That is equal to more than £2,000 for every family in the land. Instead, they are doing nothing. What a waste.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman.
  Even by the crudest and coldest Treasury standards of accountancy, and making no allowance for human misery, mass unemployment is costing a fortune. The cost of mass unemployment in terms of lost production——
  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, not at the moment.
  The cost of mass unemployment in terms of lost production and loss to the taxpayer is therefore equal to more than £3,000 for every family in Britain. That is surely an intolerable cost.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has described a dire and concerning situation, and we share his concern. Why is the impression given that his party, given those circumstances, would seek to make matters worse by embracing the social chapter and increasing the burden on industry and also, no doubt, by increasing taxation which would also increase the burden on industry and make the level of unemployment much worse?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman bides his time, I will come to those matters.
  The cost of unemployment does not end with those costs. The damage to health places extra strain on the national health service. Domestic violence and family breakdown place extra demands on social services, the police and the courts. By breaking up families, unemployment adds to homelessness. By giving young people nothing to do, it leads to crime. That does not mean that not having a job automatically makes someone a criminal. Unemployment does not provide an excuse for theft or violence.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not give way until I have finished making my point.
  Mass youth unemployment means the breakdown of the ties that bind society together. Unemployment opens a gap between the generations. It creates a gulf between the dispossessed and those with possessions. With no honest way to earn a living, unemployed young people are exposed to the temptations of a life of crime which can provide more money and excitement than respectable society can offer.
  Mr. George Howarth: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the relationship between crime and unemployment, will he comment on Clarke Foods which recently closed down Lyons Maid in my constituency? Perhaps he will refer specifically to allegations that have been made of insider dealing, fraud and possible gun-running by the proprietors of that company. Does not that example contrast sharply with the risks that young people take? The people who own companies such as Clarke Foods are often dodgy.
  Mr. Dobson: I do not have such detailed information about the owners of Clarke Foods. However, I believe that the proposed closure—throwing people out of work and reducing their pay—is a crime against the people of Knowsley.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's belief that increased unemployment among young people will result in a higher burglary or crime rate. Is it not true that, although we had high employment, the crime rate continued to increase at a rate of which none of us would approve? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Sussex, which has high unemployment at present, the burglary rate has gone down?
  Mr. Dobson: The fact is that we have had mass unemployment in many parts of the country since this Government took office in 1979. We have had rising crime, year in and year out. The greatest increase in the crime rate has occurred in the areas with the highest unemployment. As my hon. Friends will confirm, large and small pockets of disenchantment are developing all over Britain.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  Those pockets of disenchantment are filled with young people who are alienated from society. Those young people share fewer of our values, and are less and less convinced that anyone cares for them. They are prey to exploitation by the evil right-wing forces of prejudice, hatred and unreason, which we have already seen unleashed elsewhere in Europe.
  What do the Government have to offer in response to all of that? Nothing, or next to nothing. The Secretary of State expresses her concern and sympathy. She talks about counselling and training. But she knows that her Department's training budget per unemployed person is less than half of what it was just three short years ago. Counselling and training and concern and sympathy may ease the pain of unemployment, but they are not enough. The only cure for unemployment is a job. The Secretary of State is doing nothing about jobs.
  The autumn statement was so feeble that the Secretary of State and her colleagues have refused to estimate how many jobs it will create. I think that the reason for that refusal is that any jobs created would certainly be outpaced by the Government-induced job destruction which is taking place at the same time. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Government has anything to offer.
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways for young people to find jobs is through youth training and that the Government have probably the largest youth training programme in Europe? Does he accept that, for other people, employment action is important in providing training? Will he tell the House why the Transport and General Workers Union—which sponsors several Front-Bench Opposition Members, one of whom is sitting next to him—has said consistently that it will boycott those programmes?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman would do well to consider the true record of the various training programmes. Let us take employment training——
  Mr. Coombs: What about youth training?
  Mr. Dobson: I will come to youth training in a moment. Employment training was much vaunted until the Secretary of State herself denounced it recently and said that it needed to be replaced. I can see why she denounced it. Fewer than one in five of the people who go on employment training end up with a job. The figures show that people stand less chance of finding a job if they have been on employment training than if they have not. That is scarcely a success rate. About one in four of those who go on youth training do not get a job and 65 per cent. do not obtain a qualification. The scheme is an effort, but it is not good enough.
  What has the Secretary of State to offer anyone in Britain? What does she have to offer Andy Cartlidge? He is one of 325 people who lost their job at Rolls-Royce in Nuneaton. He is a trained craftsman in his late 20s. He worked in that factory using state-of-the-art equipment to work sophisticated metals to produce discs and spacers for aero engine turbines. He is out of a job now. He is one of the most highly skilled people in Britain. He does not need training; he needs a job.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Dobson: I shall press on for the moment because other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition spokesman to say consistently that he will give way to me and keep a humble Back-Bencher in a state of excitement and anticipation and then to give way to everyone else?
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I would not describe the hon. Gentleman as a humble Back-Bencher by any means.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that my hon. Friend will be happy if I do not hit the note of petulance that is being struck on the Conservative Benches. This is a serious debate. Will my hon. Friend consider that one way in which the Government could protest about unemployment and do something to redeem their position would be to abandon the Bill to privatise British Rail? They would thereby protect 1,500 jobs in my constituency, where 5,000 jobs have already been lost in manufacturing.
  Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. Indeed, I shall deal with that matter later in my speech, if I am allowed to reach it.
  What does the Secretary of State have to say to Linda Wilkinson of York? Compulsory competitive tendering left her with the choice of giving up her job cooking school dinners at English Martyrs school in York or accepting a £600 cut in pay and the loss of statutory sick pay and other benefits. Is that the choice that the Tories offer to hard-working women in Britain, where the Minister responsible for equal opportunities is also the Secretary of State for Employment?
  What does the Secretary of State have to offer the unemployed in Basildon. where unemployment has doubled in the past two years? People in Basildon have lost jobs recently at Yardley Perfumes, Northern Telecoms and even, dare I say it, Access. Basildon people lost jobs when Marconi in Chelmsford laid off hundreds. The jobcentre in Basildon recently advertised a job for a clerical assistant with the police force. More than 500 people applied for that job. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the 500-odd people who did not get that one job?
  Mr. John Sykes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in May this year the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) admitted the devastating effect that the minimum wage would have on jobs and said that "any silly fool" knew that? Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman had read out what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) actually said, I should be able to agree, because it was true. As the hon. Gentleman did not read it out, I cannot agree with him.
  Those are just a few from millions of examples.
  Mr. Oppenheim rose——
  Mr. Nicholls rose——
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way to the riff-raff at the back.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman will not give way to a humble Back Bencher, why will he not give way to an arrogant Back Bencher who at least knows what he is talking about?
  Madam Speaker: That is a point of frustration and not a point of order.
  Mr. Dobson: Perhaps I should explain that, when many people have no jobs, I am reluctant to give way to Tory Back Benchers who have legions of jobs between them.
  Mr. Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order with which I can deal. If it is not, I shall not deal leniently with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Is it in order for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to make a claim about the "legions of jobs" that I supposedly have when my only job is in this House?
  Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have some order in the House this afternoon. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) has explained his position and it is recorded.
  Mr. Dobson: The examples that I gave are just a few of millions which show what is happening, but unemployment also affects people who are still at work. Under this Government most people in work think that they are lucky to have a job. Their workplace is filled with rumours of redundancy and they do not fancy their chances of finding a new job. If they are made redundant they are reluctant to pursue new jobs because they fear the insecurity that goes with being the last in—they may turn out to be the first out. They are frightened to speak out at work for fear of the sack, and they are frightened to borrow or to spend because they rightly fear another rainy day.
  That fearful and aquiescent work force may appeal to the Victorian values of the Tories, but it is no role for fellow citizens in a democracy.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what the Opposition would do to solve the problem? They are very good at telling us what we have done wrong. He has already said that unemployment is terribly wasteful, and I agree. I am sure that he agrees that most unemployed people desperately want to work. Does he agree that we should set up a voluntary workfare system, because thousands of unemployed people would accept such work if they had the chance to do so? Does he recognise that the Secretary of State has gone some way towards agreeing with my views by agreeing to set up a pilot workfare scheme?
  Mr. Dobson: My general view is that if there is work to be done and people to do it, they should be paid the rate for the job; workfare would not then be necessary.
  What do people have to show for all the pain that they have suffered? Tory apologists have argued for years that unemployment is the price that we must pay for economic advance—that it is the medicine to cure our economic ills. The first thing to note is that those who prescribe unemployment as a medicine always fight shy of taking a bracing draught of it themselves.
  Secondly, that argument is total economic rubbish. After more than thirteen and a half years of Tory Governments doling out doses of unemployment by the

  705
  bucketful, what have we got? Britain is economically weaker than it has ever been; our share of' the world trade in manufactures has fallen; the trade surplus that the Tories inherited has been turned in 10 successive years of deficit and is heading for an official total of £14 billion this year; Government borrowing is set to hit record levels; the gap between rich and poor is the widest that it has been this century; investment is down; and bankruptcies are up. On top of all that, the Government have allowed Britain—the only country in western Europe with substantial reserves of coal, oil and natural gas—to fritter away our fuel trade surplus and to become a net importer of fuel again.
  That brings me to the failure of Tory Ministers for which they will surely never be forgiven. I refer to the way in which they have squandered the advantage of North sea oil and gas. Handled properly, the takings from the North sea could have been used to transform Britain, getting us ready for the challenges of the new century, which I remind Conservatives Members is only seven short years away—wealth for Britain, protection for the balance of trade, capital to invest in our future and massive revenues for the Government.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Gentleman has said much about investment and earlier he spoke of a young man who had worked for Rolls-Royce. Is he aware that the advances of modern technology have meant that companies such as Rolls-Royce can purchase machines that can do the jobs of 20 or 30 men over a 24-hour period? Does he appreciate that problem, which is also a problem of investment?
  Mr. Dobson: I had intended to deal with that issue later. Rolls-Royce, one of our blue chip companies which should be putting a great deal of money into the future, is investing less in research now that it is privatised than it invested when it was in public ownership.
  Over the last thirteen and a half years, the Tories' revenues from the North sea have totalled £110 billion. What do we have to show for it? Nothing. It has all been squandered on financing unemployment, on tax concessions for the very rich and on trying to ease the pain of the poll tax. Every penny has gone.
  A far-sighted Government would have used that money to invest in research and development, in new plant and equipment, in education and training for our young people and on retraining our older people. But the Government did not do that. They were too busy pushing through tax concessions for, for example, the Duke of Westminster, to whom, if we understand the Evening Standard aright. the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is giving money to help him support his money-raising activities from his estates.
  Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There has for long been a tradition in the House that if an occupant of the Front Bench refers specifically to another hon. Member, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) just has, he should gives way. The conventions that apply to Back Benchers should apply to Front Benchers.
  Madam Speaker: The House knows that it is a convention, but it is entirely up to the right hon. or hon. Member who has the Floor whether or not he gives way.
  Mr. Dobson: If the impatient and well-paid hon. Member for Teignbridge had waited for me to finish another sentence, he would know that I had intended to give way to him.
  The Tories have also spent their time giving subsidies to foreign property speculators. I cannot believe that giving £370 million in subsidies to the Canadian developers of Canary Wharf was a good investment for the rest of Britain.
  Mr. Nicholls: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that any prospective employer listening to his contribution to today's debate will be encouraged to provide job opportunities, especially as the hon. Gentleman is on record as recently as September as describing employers as
  "stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum"?
  That has been the nature of the hon. Gentleman's contribution today.
  Mr. Dobson: My remarks in September appear, like Banquo's ghost, every time I come into the Chamber. I will make the position clear. I withdraw not one word of what I said, remembering that I addressed those words to those who pay poverty level wages and pay themselves a fortune on the backs of those poverty level workers, so they are exactly as I described them, which is why I do not withdraw a word of what I said.
  Instead of using the heaven-sent opportunity of North sea oil to lift the skills and qualities of our people——
  Mr. Oppenheim rose——
  Mr. Dobson: I will definitely not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Those revenues should have been used to lift the skills and qualities of our people to levels as high as any in the world. Instead, the Government have given up any idea of putting our people in a position where they can compete with the best. They have abandoned the idea of competing with German industry through innovation, quality and skill. They have thrown in the towel. Faced with the choice of Britain as a science park or a sweat shop, the Tories have opted for the sweat shop. They say that our people can now only compete if they work long hours for low wages in poor conditions.
  When it comes to photo opportunities at international conferences, Tory Ministers are pictured as part of the Group of Seven developed countries, but when it comes to economic ambition the same Tories see our country as being in a trade war with the third world. That is why they fight against every effort to improve working conditions and reject the social chapter. They know that while they are in charge Britain cannot compete on quality with the best; under the Tories, we are reduced to competing on cost with the worst. Why else would the Prime Minister think that our miners should compete with coal produced by child labour in Colombia?
  Mr. Oliver Heald: How can the hon. Gentleman describe British industry in those derogatory terms when Britain has six of the top 10 businesses in Europe competing with the best on quality?
  Mr. Dobson: We do not say that it applies to every industry——
  Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman referred to the use of child labour in Colombia to produce coal that is exported. That statement is absolutely untrue and I ask that he withdraw it.
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is certainly not a point of order which the Chair of this House can resolve at this stage.
  Mr. Dobson: As the president of the Colombian mining industry says that there is child labour in Colombia. I am willing to go along with that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Domestic coal."] Let us see the Tory vision of the future: it is all right if the children are producing domestic coal. That is absolutely brilliant.
  What should the Government do, apart from quieten down some of their Back Benchers? First, they should act to stop the rot. More than 300,000 jobs are presently on the line as a direct result of Government policies. More than 100,000 jobs are threatened by the Government's pit closure programme, partly induced by the import of child-labour coal from Colombia. Another 100,000 jobs are likely to disappear from local councils as a result of the new grant settlement. Dinner ladies, road sweepers and home helps will all be thrown on the scrap heap. The national health service could lose as many as 25,000 jobs as a result of the cuts now being pushed through. The Government could stop all that today.
  Jobs in the Post Office, shipbuilding and defence supplies have all been marked to go by the Government. They could prevent that by abandoning Post Office privatisation, phasing their warship orders to help the shipyards, and buying British equipment and ammunition. It was bad enough to sell arms to Iraq, but if the Royal Ordnance closures go through, we could end up buying arms from Iraq. North sea revenues could have been used to diversify from defence to civilian production, drawing on the supremely skilled work forces of many of our defence manufacturers. Instead, the Government have let them go. Immediate Government action could save all those jobs.
  However, it cannot stop there. In times like these, the Government have a duty to reduce unemployment by creating jobs. The Tories claim that Governments cannot create jobs but can only destroy them. I accept that that is true of the present Tory Government but they should not generalise from the particular. The Government have destroyed thousands of jobs, but that does not mean that Governments cannot create them.
  Mr. James Couchman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, not at the moment.
  Governments can and do create jobs directly through investment and intervening to provide financial and other help for private investors, and indirectly by raising aggregate demand for goods and services. All those approaches would create jobs and the Government should adopt them before the roll call of the jobless becomes endless.
  Once again, I call on the Government to halt the 300,000 job losses that will be created by direct Government action. As we have said time and again, the Government should begin to realise the takings from the sale of council houses for investment in new housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich
  708
  (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the Government should abandon rail privatisation and, instead, start a major investment programme in the railway system to give every part of Britain fast, direct and reliable connections to the rest of Europe through the channel tunnel.
  The Government should release funds to improve the London underground and local railway systems. They should put seed corn investment into science parks and other industrial developments associated with research and higher education. They should invest more in effective, high-quality skill training rather than the ineffective job-chasing schemes that dominate their policies at present. Those proposals will start to stop the rot, but even bolder long-term measures are required.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: My hon. Friend has referred to the shipyards. Is it not a fact that the Government could make great inroads in reducing unemployment at the country's various ports if they decided to use "Options for Change" to build the badly needed merchant ships? I think that all hon. Members recognise the need for a merchant fleet to put shipyard workers back to work and our seamen back on ships that they can sail.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend raises some good points, which are relevant in the present circumstances on Merseyside. I am sure that other of my hon. Friends will wish to press the matter of Cammell Laird and other yards.
  I believe that the first requirement of bold measures is to return full employment to its proper place in the economic and political ambitions of both Britain and Europe. Nobody pretends that full employment can be achieved immediately, but it will never be achieved by accident. First, we need to decide that we want full employment. Only after we have decided the destination can we begin to plan the journey and to work out the route.
  Full employment cannot be achieved in Britain alone; it must also be put back on the agenda of the European Community. At present, whichever figure we use, we find that more than 16 million people are officially out of work in the Community, which is shameful and presents a threat to the cohesion of the European Community. Some people cannot understand why Denmark voted no. They could do worse than look at the unemployment figures. When Denmark joined the Community in 1972 there were just 23,000 Danes out of work—now the figure exceeds 316,000. A European commitment to get those people back to work would, I suspect, work wonders with Danish public opinion.
  Mr. Marlow: What are the figures here in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Dobson: The increase is not as bad.
  Mass unempoyment does more than threaten the cohesion of the Community—it threatens democracy. The unemployed young have always been a principal recruiting ground of the racist, anti-Semitic, fascist, right-wing parties in Europe. With the neo-fascists strutting around in Italy and murdering neo-nazis stomping around in Germany, and their counterparts reappearing in France and Spain, mass unemployment must be tackled now, Europewide.

  709
  All the democratic parties of Europe must address the problems of the unemployed in Europe before the unemployed transfer their loyalties, disillusionment and anger elsewhere. That is why getting Europe back to work should have been top of the agenda for the Edinburgh summit. Theological discussions about subsidiarity should have given way to practical plans to maintain and create jobs.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am sure that Members on both sides of the House share the hon. Gentleman's concern about unemployment throughout the European Community. Would he like to comment on the words of the Commissioner with responsibility for employment, Mrs. Vasso Papandreou, who only last week in this House expressed her views on how work and jobs would be created in the Europe of the future? She expressed some anxiety that investment in jobs involving what was described as too much capital investment—investment in manufacturing jobs—was not the way forward, and said that future jobs in Europe should be created in the service sector. I would not wish to denigrate that view, but it is certainly not the way in which the Government are approaching the problem. It is the socialist view of Europe——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions should take the form of questions, not speeches.
  Mr. Dobson: I am certainly prepared to comment on that. Germany may he able to afford a slightly higher proportion of its economy being devoted to the service sector, because it starts with 12 per cent. more people in manufacturing jobs than the European average, whereas we are below the European average. We are the country that practically got rid of our manufacturing base. We were promised time and again that the service sector could take the strain. But the service sector is not taking the strain: the 4 million people who are out of work are taking the strain.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I note with great interest the correlation that the hon. Gentleman has drawn between violence in European countries and unemployment. The part of his jurisdiction in which I live has the highest unemployment in Europe. It is no coincidence that the three constituencies in Europe with the highest unemployment are represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and by me. Is it any surprise, therefore, that the correlation between violence and unemployment has demonstrated itself for the past 20 years in the north of Ireland?
  I wish to pose a question and to ask the hon. Gentleman's advice. If there were three British constituencies—in England, Scotland and Wales—with the highest unemployment in Europe, would they not have been made disaster areas and been given special attention?
  Mr. Dobson: There may be something in what the hon. Gentleman says. The problems of Northern Ireland are not simple, and there are clear links between violence and unemployment. I am glad to hear him confirm the points that I have been trying to make, which have largely fallen on deaf Conservative ears.
  710
  What are needed now are bold and positive policies, not just to cut unemployment but to aim for full employment. Full employment works. It worked when the Secretary of State and I started work in the early 1960s, when unemployment was low and there was almost one vacancy for every person seeking a job. That was a good time to go into the work force—a great deal better than now. Full employment works and is good for everyone. It gets people off the dole queues; it gives them self respect. It gives school leavers a choice of jobs. It gives people the security to change jobs. Full employment allows people at work to say what they think. It saves the taxpayer a fortune. It creates more wealth; it makes possible a better life for all our people.
  Mr. Couchman rose——
  Mr. Dobson: I have given way an enormous number of times.
  To bring about full employment will not be easy. Technological change, as I acknowledged, can take away jobs as well as create them. Therein lies another criticism of this Conservative Government. As Benjamin Disraeli, born in my constituency, said of Conservatism:
  "it offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future."
  Faced with the changing nature of work, faced with the adjustments that society will have to make in response to these changes in work, the do-nothing Tory Government have given no thought to the problem and made no preparation for it. All, we understand, is to be left to market forces—and we cannot trust market forces.
  We need to look in future to the capacity and skills of our people and measure them against the demands of our economy and try to match them. If we go about it the right way we can match them to suit the needs of the work force as well as the needs of the economy.
  Properly organised, most people in future could be able to choose when to work and what hours each day, what days in a week, what weeks in a year and what years in a lifetime. That could transform, particularly, the position of women at work and so transform society.
  With more and more powerful machines to do more and more of the work, we shall need to share out the work that needs to be done by men and women and the rewards that go with it. We in the Labour party reject the untrammelled free market approach to the future of work. We need only look at what is happening today. This very day we have, at the same time, 4 million people on the dole while millions of others are working far too long hours in circumstances that threaten their physical and mental well-being and clash with the needs of their families.
  We need to invest to make this change, but we need to decide that the Government has a role in this change. Those in the Conservative party who reject the role of Governments in this change want things to go on as they are. The profits of our existing industries and the products of the hard work of their employees must be invested and reinvested in plant and equipment, in research and development, and in training for a better and more high-tech future. The people of our country want to see that investment and are entitled to see it. They have been sickened over the past few years by the way many company directors have lined their pockets with enormous salaries, share options and other perks, while at the same time laying off large parts of their skilled and loyal work forces and preaching for others the merits of frugality. The

  711
  mass unemployment of recent times has rendered such behaviour totally unacceptable and likely to undermine the stability of our society.
  What we need now is an end to the rising tide of unemployment and the unacceptable burden it places on the people of our country. We need a package of measures to get Britain and Europe back to work. As we approach the new century we need a long-term commitment to aim for full employment and a new approach to work which shares out its demands and rewards more fairly and effectively. Nothing less will do.
  4.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises the need for the United Kingdom economy to remain competitive at a time of world recession; rejects the job destroying policies of Her Majesty's Opposition including the national minimum wage; notes that the United Kingdom has the second highest proportion of its population in employment of any country in the European Community; congratulates the Government on the new opportunities afforded by the Autumn Statement; and welcomes the Government's new package of 1·5 million employment and training opportunities providing more help than ever before to help unemployed people get back into work.".
  There is one thing on which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and I agree and that is about the importance of the subject under debate. Unemployment is a difficult and distressing experience for the individuals concerned, and for their families and for the communities in which they live. Of course, in a time of recession, the fear of losing a job is very real. All of us, on both sides of the House, understand that.
  This afternoon I intend to set out what the Government are doing, first, to promote growth in the economy and in jobs—because lasting employment is created only in a sound economy—and, secondly, to help those who have lost their jobs to get back into work. Jobs are created by the initiatives and enterprise of businesses and of the individuals who work in them. It is clear, on this side of the House at least, that jobs can come only from the competitiveness, the efficiency and the earnings of our industry and commerce.
  But the Government have a vital role to play. They need to ensure the right economic framework; and because people, if they become unemployed or face redundancy, are nervous and anxious, they need to know that there is genuine and effective help at hand.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Does not the Secretary of State accept that Government privatisation policies are costing hundreds and thousands of jobs and that to privatise British Rail will not only destroy the existing integrated service but will throw many hundreds of people on to the dole quite unnecessarily?
  Mrs. Shephard: Of course I do not accept the hon. Lady's premise. This country needs a proper infrastructure of efficient railway services and communications. If that can be achieved better by privatisation, so it should be. That will stimulate the economy and the creation of real jobs.
  Before I describe the Government measures provided for those who are unemployed or who face redundancy, I will remind the House of certain points that Opposition Members like to ignore. They like to ignore the fact that
  712
  there is a world recession. They like to maintain, in their unremitting efforts to talk Britain down, that ours is the only country in the world to be in recession; the only country in the world to be affected by unemployment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: A booklet circulated among all the high commissions and embassies throughout the world entitled "Invest in Britain" states that Britain's labour force is the cheapest in the world.—cheaper than those of France, Germany, and America. It states also that trade unions in Britain have no legal rights. I am trying to think of the many other things that the booklet said, and I wish that I had that document with me—[Laughter.] Conservative Members should not laugh, because the Government produced the booklet. Has the Secretary of State read it?
  Mrs. Shephard: No, I have not—and it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot quote from it accurately. I am sure that he is grateful that many jobs have been created in his constituency by inward investment.
  Let us consider what is happening elsewhere in the world—for example, in Japan and Germany, for so long the acknowledged economic leaders of the industrialised world. As they struggle to emerge from recession, their economies remain sluggish. Last year, industrial output fell more in both Japan and Germany than in the United Kingdom. The German institutes—known more familiarly as the five wise men—predict no growth at all in the German economy in 1993. Recession continues in Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland. What of north America and the Pacific rim countries? They have shared the same problems.
  Manufacturing jobs in the major economies have declined since the mid-1960s, and recent strains on the European monetary system and exchange rate mechanism show the seriousness of those economic problems in Europe. Every country in the ERM has been affected and nearly every currency, including the French franc. The Nordic countries, whose links to the ERM do not involve membership, have also been affected.
  Last week in Brussels I chaired the Social Affairs Council, and I do have to say that the Opposition motion on the EC excels itself even for an Opposition motion, in being out of date, irrelevant, and wrong. For the very first time, employment Ministers of the Community spent time discussing the problems of people without jobs—and this entirely as a result of the United Kingdom presidency's employment resolution initiative. All the member states supported that initiative and the practical measures to help that it produced.
  There is shared anxiety about unemployment across the EC—as well there might be, because in Spain and Ireland, unemployment is more than 17 per cent., in France unemployment among young people is 22 per cent. And even Germany now faces the prospect of rapidly rising unemployment—up by 54,000 in November alone.
  Mr. David Alton: Does not the Secretary of State accept, in making her international comparisons, that, although the recession is deep and worldwide, other countries have responded differently? In Germany, for example, billions of deutschmarks have been invested in the coal mining industry to try to save jobs, and infrastructure investment is being made in many of the other countries that the right hon. Lady mentioned. Does

  713
  she not think that, in trying to find a way forward, it would be worthwhile looking at the responses made by other countries?
  Mrs. Shephard: That is precisely what took place in the Social Affairs Council. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be interested to learn that this very day the Belgian employment Minister is in our country to learn how we cope with the unemployed.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras ignores the fact that other countries are affected as we are. In common with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras never loses an opportunity to talk Britain down. He ought to know that the United Kingdom cannot insulate itself from the effects of world slowdown, and he should support Government action to deal with those problems.
  The hon. Gentleman, predictably, is entirely blind to those positive aspects of our economy that mean that we are ready to benefit from recovery, and are in a better shape than many of our competitors. He ignores those positive facts because Government policy has achieved them. Those achievements include the lowest interest rates in Europe; inflation under control and, at 3·6 per cent., at a level comparable to our major competitors and below the EC average; producer price inflation at its lowest since 1969; business taxation at the lowest in the G7 and EC countries; welcome signs of moderation in pay settlements—underlying earnings grew by 5·5 per cent. last year, the lowest for 25 years; unit costs well under control; retail sales continuing on a rising trend; new car sales in October rose by more than 8 per cent., and, total consumer spending rose in the second quarter of 1992 by 0·5 per cent.—the first increase since recession began; a competitive pound, which gives growing opportunities to exporters; rapidly improving productivity; and an improvement in productivity made possible by the removal of burdens previously placed on industry by Governments and trade unions.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: Does the Secretary of State accept that the people whom I represent in the black country always seek to be positive and are very resilient? However, my constituency has an unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent., and more than one third of our young people are out of work. My constituency is currently experiencing the closure of another company—the Rolls-Royce of the gas cooker industry, which has been producing cookers for 175 years. That plant is under the threat of closure, yet it has made profits and produces a top-line product. It has done everything that the company could have asked of its work force. Can you, as Secretary of State for Employment,——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I personally cannot do anything. Earlier in this debate, after an intervention by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), I drew attention to interventions being so long that they amounted to speeches rather than questions. The same applies to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Turner: My sincere apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman obviously feels strongly about that key company in his constituency, but lower inflation and rising productivity must help his constituency, too. It is the framework that matters, not the extra burden that would—sadly, I must tell the hon. Gentleman—be imposed by a Labour Government, were one to be in power.
  Most important of all, there has been an unparalleled improvement in the climate of industrial relations in this country. In the whole of last year, only 800,000 days were lost through strikes—the lowest figure for any calendar year since records began.
  Mr. Terry Lewis rose——
  Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Gentleman wants a different figure, I shall be glad to give him one. In the 1970s, when Labour was in power, 13 million working days were lost each year through industrial action. Even in 1989, at the peak of the economic cycle, the number was four times lower. When it comes to strikes, this Government's achievement is an improvement on the record not only of Labour Governments but also of the party of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) when it was last in power more than 100 years ago.
  Mr. Lewis: The Secretary of State talks about creating the right conditions and industrial relations. SmithKline Beecham, in my constituency, is closing a factory that it claims was profitable, had good industrial relations, and was an excellent part of that group's enterprise. Because the conditions have not been properly provided by the Government, they are now closing the factory and moving that manufacturing base somewhere else. What can the right hon. Lady say to that work force, who fulfilled every demand made upon them by the company and by the Government? That factory is on an estate where unemployment among 18 to 25-year-old males is 26 per cent.
  Mrs. Shephard: Companies such as the one described by the hon. Gentleman have to make commercial decisions, and presumably that is the reason for the decision that this company has made. But if that company were in the grip of industrial action, as it was when the hon. Gentleman's party was last in power, if business, commerce and industry were in the grip of the burdens on business that his party would impose upon it, millions more would be out of work.
  Our deregulation policies have been a major factor behind the phenomenal growth of small firms. Between 1979 and 1989, their number increased to nearly 3 million. More than 1 million jobs were created between 1985 and 1989 by firms employing fewer than 20 people. And even in this time of economic difficulty many new businesses are starting. In 1991, there were more than 200,000 new value added tax registrations—a higher figure than that for most of the 1980s.
  Despite recent rises in unemployment, the United Kingdom still has more people in work than any other country in the European Community except Denmark: 71 per cent. of the adult population are in employment, compared with just 65 per cent. in Germany and only 59 per cent. in France. What we need to maintain that is a flexible labour market, improved industrial relations and an economy structured to promote enterprise. These are the foundations of economic success.
  Mr. Dobson: I hope that the right hon. Lady is not claiming some peculiar credit for this Government because there is a higher proportion of the population in the work force in Britain than anywhere else in Europe other than Denmark. That circumstance has prevailed as far back as records go, and certainly to the beginning of the 1960s. Surely she is not claiming credit for it.
  Mrs. Shephard: That, of course, is because Denmark has never had to endure the kind of burdens that would be imposed if the Labour party were in government
  What we need for the recovery to take hold is confidence: we need confidence in business and confidence among consumers. Everything is in place except that one vital ingredient.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recognised that when he set out the Government's economic strategy in his autumn statement. He stated clearly the aims of the Government.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady must have misunderstood my question. I asked whether she would confirm to the House that Britain's second place in participation in the work force, for which she was claiming credit, has existed as far back as records have been maintained and since long before this Government took office.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman must keep trying. The House knows very well that the sort of measures that he and his colleagues would impose on industry, business and commerce in this country would increase unemployment by millions. I shall go on to show that.
  The aims of the autumn statement were to restore confidence, restart economic growth and, above all, create new jobs. The strategy for achieving these aims is clear: low inflation, tight control of public spending, competition and a vigorous supply-side policy. These are the policies which delivered growth and job creation on an unprecedented scale in the 1980s, and they will do so again in the 1990s.
  My right hon. Friend also introduced measures aimed directly at job creation—measures aimed at boosting confidence and strengthening recovery; measures rightly targeted on those sections worst hit by recession, in particular construction and the car industry.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Can the right hon. Lady tell the House when she expects unemployment to start to fall?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that unemployment will begin to fall when the recovery begins, and the conditions for the recovery to begin are in place. What is needed is confidence, and confidence is boosted by the autumn statement.
  Local authorities in England and Wales will be allowed to spend receipts from the sale of council houses. Priority will be given to spending on capital projects over pay increases for public sector workers. Some 20,000 empty houses will be taken off the market and all this should increase buoyancy in the housing market, create confidence and provide jobs. As one chief executive, Mr. Clive Thompson, has said:
  "It's pretty much what the doctor ordered-tight public expenditure and priority to capital expenditure."
  Car tax is abolished and there are other measures for industry generally. First-year allowances for plant and
  716
  machinery are increased from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. There is a special initial allowance of 20 per cent. for industrial and agricultural buildings, which is important not just for manufacturing industry but also for rural areas, whose unemployment problems should not be overlooked.
  We now have the prospect of a GATT deal. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that a successful Uruguay round agreement would boost world income by nearly $200 billion a year. That would add 1 per cent. to output in the European Community. The United Kingdom, with its record of improved competitiveness, is well placed to take advantage of a successful GATT deal. For exporters, whose prices are already highly competitive, the autumn statement measures have increased export credit cover. As business takes advantage of all these more favourable conditions, jobs will follow.
  All forecasters now expect output to grow in 1993. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor predicts growth of around I per cent. Others, such as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, are more optimistic and forecast growth at 2 per cent.
  This is what some business leaders said after they heard the details of the autumn statement. Howard Davis, director general of the Confederation of British Industry, said:
  "These measures … will rebuild industry's confidence in itself and in the Government."
  Sir David Lees, chairman of GKN and of the CBI economic affairs committee, said:
  "My response is very favourable. We needed a whole package of measures and that's what we got … it will help to restore confidence. The Chancellor has listened to what industry said to him."
  Mr. David Winnick: I know that the right hon. Lady leads a very busy life, but does she take the opportunity to visit areas and communities in our country where unemployment is very high indeed? A high percentage of school leavers simply have no chance of finding a job and people in their middle age know that they are never likely to work again. Does she know about the deprivation, the poverty and the lack of hope in so many parts of our country, and does she not, as Secretary of State, feel ashamed that this is happening and that people take the view that there is no hope? That is the reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, why the extremists, the hate merchants, feel that they now have a fertile field to work in.
  Mrs. Shephard: It is an insult to the vast majority of unemployed people to imply that criminal behaviour necessarily accompanies unemployment.
  In direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's serious question, let me say that I spend a great deal of time visiting areas of the country where unemployment is high to see the success of the measures which we have in place to help young people, people in middle age, people who are facing redundancy. That is why I am delighted that I shall be announcing 1½ million places in training and employment schemes to help precisely the people mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  Business was pleased with the autumn statement. Nigel Whitaker, head of corporate affairs at the Kingfisher group, said:

  717
  "It's good news for the consumer and should help build confidence … It's certainly good in the run up to Christmas"
  Neil Marshall, chief economist of the Retail Motor Industry Federation, said:
  "I think the whole package will have a very positive effect on both consumer and industrial confidence".
  That is what business said, and business creates jobs; but we must face facts.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the confidence that the Secretary of State perceives among business men be boosted or destroyed in my city, Birmingham? Since May, Birmingham has lost 2,500 jobs, many of them in manufacturing. Will the confidence to which the right hon. Lady has referred be increased or undermined by the Government's threat to withdraw assisted area status from the west midlands?
  Mrs. Shephard: I regret that I cannot comment on other Department's plans in regard to assisted area status. I know, however, that people in the west midlands will also have welcomed the measures in the autumn statement—measures relating to cars, manufacturing allowances and help for exports. The west midlands is a particularly vibrant area, and I know that it will bounce back in the conditions that I have described.
  Unemployed people now need the security of knowing that we are providing them with real and practical help. I began my speech by stressing the seriousness of unemployment, and the distress that it causes individuals. I am determined to ensure that unemployed people are given ever more effective help to find new jobs; that is why I have carried out a full-scale review of my Department's employment and training measures. I want to tell the House about the new package of measures that has resulted from that review.
  Our package will provide a wider range of opportunities than ever before—a total of 1·5 million. It is targeted on helping the long-term unemployed, and those who need most help to get back to work. It will be effective, because it is based on practical experience of programmes with a proven record of success. It will represent the widest range of help that we have ever made available, and it will provide nearly half a million more opportunities in 1993–94 than in the current year.
  We shall give priority to the measures that help people the most. We know that two thirds of those who become unemployed leave unemployment within six months. We shall focus on the people with the greatest need, and the measures that have already proved successful.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: How much more money will be available for the scheme to provide half a million places?
  Mrs. Shephard: My Department's resources have increased by 1 per cent. in real terms, rising to an extra £200 million.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Can the Secretary of State reassure the people of Birmingham that the new schemes will be more effective than Employment Training, under which only 17 per cent. of trainees have obtained jobs while 72 per cent. remain unemployed?
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall deal with that point shortly. In the meantime, let me tell the hon. Lady that we have
  718
  changed the employment training scheme: we have introduced "training for work", a major new programme which will be dealt with by training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies. It will offer each individual what is right for him or her—skills training, temporary work opportunities or work preparation courses. TECs and LECs will have much more flexibility, and will be funded according to output—according to whether the courses end in people obtaining jobs or qualifications. The hon. Lady should be much encouraged and reassured by that news.
  Job plan workshops, which give in-depth individual assessments to long-term unemployed people, build on the proven success of our restart courses and job review workshops. Restart has just been copied by the French: Socialist France is willing to learn from good practice as the British Labour party, apparently, is not. Job clubs improve the chances of obtaining a new job by 50 per cent., with an even higher rate of success for those who are unemployed for more than nine months. In the first six months of 1992–93, 36,600 people found jobs through the job interview guarantee scheme; many of them were long-term unemployed.
  Because those two programmes are so successful, we shall be providing an extra 180,000 new places on them next year. Job review workshops, which help people to focus on the options open to them, will have an extra 10,000 places. About 60,000 career development loans, which are a major success story—seven out of 10 trainees obtain jobs after their training—will be made available to people both in and out of work over the next three years.
  Ms. Angela Eagle: I do not think that people object to training, but surely the main problem is one of demand rather than supply. Might there not be some mismatch between skills and the jobs available? However well trained an individual may be, there are too few vacancies for that individual to be certain of securing a job when the training ends. Should we not look at demand for jobs, rather than simply at the supply of a work force?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady has asked two questions in one. She mentioned the mismatch of skills and jobs; that is precisely why the responsibility for providing training lies with TECs and LECs, which are best placed to know about local demand for skills. I think that the hon. Lady should put her question about demand for jobs to the 1·4 million unemployed people who were placed in work by the employment service last year. It is the experience of the service that, with training and re-skilling and, perhaps, a willingness to travel, people have access to opportunities.
  We are focusing our programmes—with their record of success—on those in greatest need: those who have been unemployed for six months or longer, and the groups of unemployed people who face particular disadvantages and need special help to find jobs. Examples are people with disabilities, people who are unemployed as a result of large-scale redundancies, ex-members of the armed forces, ex-detainees, people with literacy or numeracy problems and people returning to the labour market after an absence of two years or more. All those people will be able to join programmes as soon as they become unemployed. These are constructive measures, focused on individuals and their specific needs.
  I am sorry to say that this is one of the great differences between the Government and the Opposition: the

  719
  Opposition talk about numbers, while we try to provide for individuals. Another major difference between us is that Labour dwells in the past, while we invest in the future. Look at our differing attitudes towards young people, for instance: Labour wants them to leave school at 16 and receive benefit, while we rejoice that nearly twice as many are staying on in full-time education or training as did so in 1979. They are staying on because our reforms—opposed by Labour at every turn—have given the country a comprehensive national curriculum and an effective examination system.
  We also provide a first-class youth training programme, giving young people skills and qualifications to fit them for the world of today and tomorrow rather than of yesterday. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out earlier, in Britain alone among European countries every 16 and 17-year-old leaving full-time education without a job is guaranteed a two-year training place.
  Mr. Dobson: No Labour Member wants young people to leave school or college and go on to benefit. We want young people to go into jobs. Let me remind the right hon. Lady again what happened to her when she left college in 1961, when unemployment was at 1·5 per cent., and what happened to me when I left college in 1962, when unemployment was at 2 per cent. Like other college and school leavers, we were given a choice of a wide variety of jobs, and we rejoiced in that choice. Labour wants to return to that position.
  Mrs. Shephard: The Labour party does not want people to go into training, otherwise it would not have voted against it at every turn, encouraged by its pay masters in the trade unions.
  Feeding on ill-informed rumours as Labour loves to do, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) wrongly claimed in the House on 20 November that 75,000 young people were waiting for a training place. When I was able to tell the House on 1 December that about 19,000 of this summer's school leavers had yet to take up a training place, I thought that he would welcome the news. Like all members of his party, he seems far too busy singing Britain's funeral dirge to listen to the truth.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Secretary of State claiming that 19,000 people falling through the guarantee is a success for the Government?
  Mrs. Shephard: The point is that that 19,000 will have been offered a place by the end of this month. I should have thought that that might be something in which the hon. Gentleman would be interested, but he is not interested in the practicalities. He does not seem to understand that some young people want a place which is not immediately available, that some change their mind, and that they all come on to the register at the same time. He should be congratulating us on our achievement.
  We see the future as one of partnership, not confrontation. Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in our creation of the nationwide network of training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies. TECs and LECs are well equipped to give positive and appropriate help to unemployed people in their particular parts of the country. TEC's are based on Conservative concern for the individual, using local expertise which best understands local needs and problems. There is no better
  720
  illustration of that than the swift response of the TECs in producing local action plans to deal with the results of possible colliery closures.
  TECs and LECs succeed because they are a partnership in which Government and business come together. We know what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras thinks of business men; indeed, he has reiterated it today. I appeal to him to drop his anti-employer stance and to drop the imagery and attitude of the Bolsheviks. He and I know that he is not that old. For once in his life, could not he accept that co-operation achieves more than confrontation?
  The clearest evidence that the Opposition are stuck in their past is their attitude to the European social charter and everything that flows from it.
  Mr. Jimmy Boyce rose——
  Mrs. Shephard: I must make some progress.
  The Opposition have given unqualified and unthinking support to each and every proposal from Brussels, however half baked, however irrelevant to the needs of a modern economy and however damaging to jobs. I have news for the hon. Gentleman: he might like to listen to what I have to say as he should find it interesting.
  At last week's meeting of the Social Affairs Council, the employment Ministers of Europe agreed that the most urgent task facing them was to take effective steps to help unemployed people get back to work. The Council did not adopt any new directives which would raise the costs of employment and hold back the creation of new jobs. Instead, it adopted unanimously a United Kingdom presidency resolution underlining the importance of increasing efficiency, supporting new businesses and avoiding the imposition of rigidities which would hold back the creation and development of employment.
  The employment Ministers of the Community understand where the real priorities lie. Last week they showed a realism which was entirely missing—alas—from today's speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The directives on part-time and temporary work, which we believe would be bad for Britain and for jobs, have not been discussed by the Social Affairs Council for two years.
  There is still no agreement on the working time directive. We have always said that that directive is the most damaging of all the proposals under the Commission's social action programme. We have always opposed it resolutely for that reason, but it is now clear that other member states have substantial problems with it. Those problems are a sign of the difficulty of legislating on a European level on issues which have traditionally been dealt with in different ways in different member states, as we have always said. Such diversity of practice is something that the Opposition have not even begun to understand.
  The truth is that in Europe, as elsewhere, the British Labour party is composed of yesterday's people pursuing yesterday's agenda.
  Mr. Dobson: If the Government are so adamant that the working hours directive will not be passed, why have they taken powers to abolish the limit on working hours down the mines on the basis that it would be replaced by the working hours directive?
  Mrs. Shephard: First, that is not so. Secondly, we have never made any secret of our dislike of the directive. We have always opposed it. Should there be any danger of its being introduced, we have also said that we should challenge it in the European Court. Nothing has changed in that respect, but what has changed is the fact that some of our partners in Europe are beginning to share our view. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has again proved that he is stuck in the past, and the same is true of his attitude and that of his colleagues to industrial relations.
  Nothing has done more to attract foreign investment into this country than the transformation of industrial relations since 1979. Nothing could be more calculated to drive foreign investment away than a return to the trade union legislation which the Labour party put on the statute book when it was last in government.
  Britain is now the most favoured country in Europe for investment by German, American and Japanese companies. In 1991, nearly 40 per cent. of all inward investment into the European Community from the United States and Japan came to this country. It is no wonder that Jacques Delors has described Britain as "a paradise for investment".
  Trade union colleagues of the Labour party passed a motion at their congress in September 1991 describing Japanese investment in this country as "alien, perverse and undemocratic". I am glad that one of the sponsors of that disgraceful motion—the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union—has already eaten its words and last week concluded a single union deal with a Japanese company.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not see fit to congratulate the MSF on overturning its policy. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the MSF sponsors only 12 Labour Members of Parliament. Clearly, they must now disown the Trades Union Congress's policy on inward investment. But what of the other 136 Labour Members of Parliament who are sponsored by other trade unions? Are we going to hear them speak out at last now that the MSF has broken ranks?
  The thousands of people in this country who work for Nissan, Sony, Honda and all the other overseas investors which have created jobs for British people in the past 10 years utterly reject the philosophy of trade union leaders who say, "If we can't have jobs on our terms, we'd rather not have jobs at all". That was the philosophy which destroyed 1,000 jobs at Dundee because of a petty quarrel between two trade unions. Until the Opposition are prepared to stand tip against such behaviour by their trade union pay masters, their claim to be concerned about jobs will continue to lack all credibility.
  Our policies are in sharp contrast to the job destruction policies of the Opposition. The Opposition claim to be concerned about unemployment, but let us spend a moment considering what that means. They claim to care deeply about young people, but what have they done? They have opposed all the Government's youth training programmes since 1979, declaring their passionate opposition to the youth training guarantee at their 1987 party conference.
  The Opposition talk about the need for training, but since 1979 they have opposed every measure brought before the House to improve the skills and qualifications of our people.
  Mr. Boyce rose——
  Mrs. Shephard: I shall take no more interventions.
  The Opposition work closely with the trade unions, but they have to because so many of them, including all the shadow Cabinet, are sponsored by unions. May we assume that Labour Members of Parliament agreed with the TUC when, in September 1991, it voted to boycott Employment Action before the programme had even begun?
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) agreed with her sponsoring union—the Transport and General Workers Union—when it voted in July 1991 to boycott youth training, employment training and the TECs?
  In the unlikely event of the Labour party ever being in power, what measures would it propose for training? Its standard answer to every problem is, "Tax it and regulate it." As an incentive to training at a time of high unemployment, the Labour party before the election proposed a jobs tax. Whereas we give people incentives to train, it proposes to put a levy on employers. Jobs are to be created by putting a tax on them.
  Of course, I do not deny that some jobs would have been created. It would be interesting to hear whether the Labour party still adheres to that policy in the manifesto. There will be jobs for civil servants and accountants. Civil servants will be needed to administer the tax and accountants will be paid to avoid it.
  For young people, worse would be in store. Young people would be allowed to work only if they had a training contract. Despite the demonstrable success of present policies—twice as many young people enter full—time education or training now as was the case in 1979—compulsion would again he the order of the day.
  Our aim in employment protection legislation is to balance the rights of individuals against the needs of those who provide them with work. Too heavy legislative requirements will destroy job opportunities and damage the very people they are supposed to help—the most vulnerable in society.
  Labour made its commitment to job destruction absolutely clear when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, speaking in the House on 17 November, reaffirmed with a bit of coaxing his commitment to a statutory national minimum wage which would destroy the very jobs Labour claims to protect. How many jobs we do not know—possibly up to 2 million. Even the Fabian Society says 800,000. But that that policy will destroy jobs is not in doubt, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East so crisply confirmed.
  Over the years, we have got used to the Labour party peddling these antiquated and destructive policies, although after the truly incredible television interview given by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on Saturday evening, we wonder whether Labour has any policies, or whether it believes in any of the policies it claims to have.
  I have to confess to added disappointment today. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would make some contribution to the solution of our problems. I thought that he might have presented some new ideas about helping unemployed people. All we have heard is a web of inaccuracy and half-truths. His speech was shot through with class envy of the usual socialist kind, based on ever-increasing sums of public expenditure. That is the classic Labour solution.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State draw attention to any factual inaccuracy in what I have said today?
  Mrs. Shephard: Almost every point that the hon. Gentleman made on this country's economic position was inaccurate. What a great opportunity the hon. Gentleman has missed. How sad his performance has been. I wanted to hear a lion roar. The hon. Gentleman has proved that he is really a mouse in sheep's clothing.
  Despite the problems of world recession, despite the uncertainties in the European financial markets and despite the unhelpful and destructive attitude of the Labour party, the Government are determined to pursue our strategy for recovery.
  I have set out that strategy to the House this afternoon—low inflation, tight public spending, competition and a vigorous supply-side policy. These are the policies, reinforced by spending on capital projects, which will lead to recovery, to growth and to the creation of real and lasting jobs. For we know, as our European partners do, that in the real world there are no quick fixes or easy options. They exist only in the mind of the Labour party.
  While we work with business to bring Britain out of recession, we know that one of our first duties as a Government is to help those individuals and communities facing unemployment and redundancy. We will spare no effort to ensure that they receive the best and most effective help that we can provide. Unlike the Labour party, we believe in Britain and her people. That is why our policies deserve the support of the whole House tonight.
  5.23 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of presenting the prizes and certificates at my old school. In my day, it was a grammar school. It is now an excellent comprehensive school which produces with a comprehensive intake results as good as those in my day when there was a grammar school intake. When I presented the certificates and prizes to the young women who had left school, I started asking them what they were doing now. I soon gave up because so many of them sadly said that they were looking for a job.
  When I left school in 1969, unemployment was 2 per cent. We did not worry about getting a job. We were concerned only about getting a job that we wanted. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Unemployment across the country is more than 10 per cent. and it has been rising every month for the past 30 months. Unemployment in this country has been rising twice as fast as in the rest of Europe in the past six months, during which we have held the presidency of the European Community.
  Some 750,000 under-24s are unemployed, the highest figure ever recorded and twice as high as the national average. If ever there was an argument against the Government's case that employment protection and wages councils undermine employment, these figures are that argument, because it is young people whose rights were removed in 1986. They had their protection under the wages councils and their right to minimum wages removed. Yet their unemployment rates are twice those for other workers.
  The studies quoted by the Government in parliamentary answers, far from backing their case that wages councils and minimum wages destroy jobs, show that the
  724
  increased ineffectiveness of the wages councils, as a result of there being fewer wages inspectors for example, has contributed to the decline in employment.
  In July, the Secretary of State announced that there would be new measures to underwrite the youth training guarantee. We have been trying to get figures for the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are waiting for a youth training place. Last week, the Secretary of State finally had to admit that 19,000 young people who left school last summer are still waiting for a youth training place. When they get a place, they are unlikely to be successful in getting work at the end of the process. I do not have the figures for youth training and I hope that, after her announcement last week, the Secretary of State will begin to give the figures month by month and district by district for those waiting for youth training places and for those who are successful in getting work. We should like to see those figures.
  Only 9 per cent. of the 2,693 people leaving employment training in Birmingham got jobs and 72 per cent. remained unemployed. From an answer to a question I tabled last week, we learned that there are only half the number of job vacancies notified for the whole of Birmingham as there are unemployed people in my constituency. Selly Oak is not one of the Birmingham constituencies that suffer most from high unemployment, bad as it is at 17 per cent. for male unemployment.
  We are not satisifed with the assurances that the Secretary of State has given today. The budget for the measures is 30 per cent. less than it was in 1987. Her assurances today are highly dubious. We look forward to seeing some improvement in the abysmal figures I have quoted.
  In October 1990, John Major said——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt, but I point out that the hon. Lady referred to the Prime Minister as "John Major". That is not in order.
  Dr. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In 1990, the Prime Minister said on taking office:
  "It will take time—it always does—to change the economy. It is like turning the Titanic round."
  Some of us believe that the Titanic is well on its way to hitting the iceberg. However, there appears to have been a change of heart in the past month. After the Government's central policy, based on membership of the exchange rate mechanism floundered, the Government suddenly announced that they were turning the Titanic in a different direction. Last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that
  "The only way to create long-term sustainable jobs is to create the right policies"—
  create the right policies? What has the Prime Minister been doing for the past two years?—
  "that produce long-term sustainable growth. That is precisely what we are putting in place."—[Official Report, 3 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 390.]
  The Government have been in power for the past 13 years and we presume that the policies that they claim they are putting in place, which will lead to recovery, are those announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement.
  However, when the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) asked the Secretary of State for Employment last week to make a statement about the employment prospects of the proposals in the autumn

  725
  statement, the right hon. Lady was evasive at first. When pressed about the precise number of jobs that would be created, she said:
  "Priority has been given to protecting programmes with significant employment implications."—[Official Report, 1 December 1992; Vol. 215, c. 135.]
  That is hardly about growth, creating employment and getting the economy off the rocks or the iceberg that we are sadly approaching.
  Despite the best talking up of the green-shoots tendency by Conservative Members, the autumn statement will simply, it is hoped, prevent this country from moving from recession into slump. The autumn statement is not enough to create the long-term sustainable growth and reduction in unemployment that the Prime Minister talked about.
  We should take a leaf from Japan's book. Japan already has a predicted growth rate of 1·8 per cent. this year. The Treasury does not believe in the green shoots that are to come from the autumn statement. The Treasury forecasts a rise in growth of only 0·75 per cent. in this country next year.
  Japan's growth rate is already much higher than ours and it has 2·2 per cent. unemployment. However, the Japanese Government realise the danger of recession and they are planning to invest the equivalent of 60 billion ecu—more than the entire EC budget—in infrastructure and investment for the future. That is the kind of approach that we need in this country if we are to reduce unemployment.
  My colleagues in local government in the west midlands have submitted a package of measures that they would like to see implemented in the west midlands. The package includes infrastructure projects and an agreement to go ahead with the midland metro; further derelict land grants; removal of toxic waste from canals; and a new station for Birmingham.
  We are also aware that there is a dreadful problem of homelessness and bad housing in this country. The Institute of Housing and all respectable housing forecasters claim that we need at least 100,000 social housing units a year. However, there will be only 32,000 this year. There is surely scope for greater investment in housing. However, despite the talking up in the autumn statement, investment in housing is likely to be cut. In addition, programmes for housing associations, other than for buying up houses on the open market which we certainly welcome, are also to be cut.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Does the hon. Lady agree with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that public spending next year should be higher titan £244·5 billion? If so, how should that be financed—by increased taxation or increased borrowing?
  Dr. Jones: I agree that expenditure must be increased if we are to save expenditure in the long run. The Secretary of State for Employment has already told us the cost of unemployment. If we do not tackle the issue now, unemployment will continue to rise. We must invest in infrastructure and housing. However, if we need to increase taxation, let those who have benefited most from the Government's mismanagement—those who have seen their tax cut by 200 times that of ordinary people—make a contribution to help us get out of the recession.
  726
  There is a desperate need for greater investment in housing. However, the Government offer us more of the same. They give with one hand and take away with the other. They are withdrawing support to local government. About £200 million will be lost to local government in England—£35 million of that to my local authority in Birmingham. There will be more job losses as a result of that. There will be cuts in the urban development programme and the much-vaunted city challenge programme will be abandoned.
  On 26 November, the president of the European investment bank said:
  "If asked we would increase the speed of financing for infrastructural projects. We are ready to do this."
  While we have the presidency of the EC, surely we should take advantage of that offer. Later this week, I hope that we will talk with our European partners about getting Europe and this country back to work.
  When the President of the Board of Trade was a Back Bencher in 1987 he said:
  "Government cannot pretend that it is not involved in decisions about the future of the key platforms of industry or that it is up to the companies alone to ensure that they are able to compete effectively in the managed marketplace of the world. There are industries such as the steel industry, the car industry and the air frame industry which cannot be allowed to fail if Britain is to remain an advanced economy. Ideally the Government should not own them, but it has an ultimate responsibility to determine if they have a role in the economy."
  Last month, in response to a question from an hon. Member about whether he should do more to ensure that we diversify our high-tech industries, the President of the Board of Trade said:
  "Diversification will take place in British industry as a result of the entrepreneurial skills of industry managers, and no one else."—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 269.]
  Those industry managers do not agree with that.
  I end by quoting Samuel Johnson:
  "We frequently fall into error and folly, not because the true principles of action are not known, but because for a time they are not remembered."
  The President of the Board of Trade should remember his earlier words before it is too late.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: In following the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), I want to refer to the point that she made in respect of the wages councils. In defence of the wages councils, she said that the reduced role of the wages councils over the past four or five years and the inadequate number of wages inspectors had led to the destruction of jobs. I simply do not believe that.
  I am a rare animal in this place because I am an employer. No doubt, if the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was in the Chamber, he would deride the fact that I have two jobs. I still run a family company and I have run it through extremely difficult times more than once, but the present times are as bad as any I have known.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to say that confidence is desperately needed to rebuild all our businesses. I suspect that there will be a slow starting, but gradually accelerating, spiral upwards as the recession recedes and recovery begins. I look forward to that.
  As an employer in a very low-tech business in a service industry—all the things that are derided by the folk on the Opposition Benches—I must tell the House that the

  727
  working time directive, minimum wages and the kind of social on-costs for labour envisaged by Opposition Members would not help me.
  I was astonished by the cheek of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), but then I always am. I was also somewhat regretful that he did not give way to me, because I had a simple question for him. I was going to ask whether he would vote against the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to bring Sunday trading back to the position under the Shops Act 1950. That would destroy thousands of part-time and full-time jobs for those who work on Sundays. The hon. Gentleman did not give way, and I shall not give way to enable him to answer my question. I shall wait until next time for him to tell us.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about training. He said that the Labour party's great nostrum to solve our unemployment problem is training. I remember that the last effort of a Labour Government—it is not simply historic, but almost pre-historic—was the introduction of the youth opportunities programme. The programme was called YOPS for short. Some of my hon. Friends who remember that programme will agree that it was the ultimate cheap labour scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman made much of manufacturing, as did many other Opposition Members. I regret the loss of our manufacturing base and many industries. My constituency in the Medway towns is much more like one of the northern industrial towns which depended largely on heavy engineering for their employment. But those days are gone, and heavy engineering has been replaced by different businesses. High-tech, light engineering and avionic businesses are the backbone of manufacturing in the Medway towns. Manufacturing is also carried out by companies such as CAV Lucas, which I visited not long ago. During that visit I understood for the first time exactly why manufacturing employment has gone to the wall. I was shown an all-dancing and singing machine which did 27 different things to metal. That means that 27 different jobs have been taken over by a machine which was manned by one minder. With three shifts a day, 78 manufacturing jobs have been lost. It is no surprise that our manufacturing employment base has declined if' that is typical of the sort of manufacturing on which we made our great days.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about investment. as do other Labour Members. Most investment that goes into manufacturing industry today is aimed primarily at doing away with labour, not with creating it. Most investment does not create jobs; it does away with them. That is not surprising, because there is not an employer in the country who is not examining his labour costs to see whether he can reduce them.
  Mr. Leighton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the country that has made the most investment in high technology is Japan, which has the lowest level of unemployment?
  Mr. Couchman: I accept that entirely. It is something which we want to learn from the Japanese. That is why I welcome the settlement of three Japanese companies in my constituency.
  I shall say something in a moment about inward investment. I think that we should take the remedies of the
  728
  hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with a pinch of salt, because, unless he acknowledges what has happened to manufacturing industry, he acknowledges nothing.
  If the 19th century was the British century and the 20th century was the American century, the 21st century will be the century of the Chinese and the Pacific rim. From my recent visits to the far east it seems that we should seek inward investment from companies in Japan, Taiwan, Korea and Hong Kong. We should welcome such companies. Those countries want to create a European base, and they have chosen the United Kingdom as the place in which to do so, for four good reasons. First, if they speak anything other than their own oriental languages, which we do not understand, they speak English. That is a powerful reason to come to the United Kingdom.
  Secondly, such countries like our industrial relations. The successive employment measures that the Government have introduced since 1979 have provided good industrial relations in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, they like our corporate tax regime. The United Kingdom has the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe. Those countries like that very much—and who would not like it if he wanted to make a profit?
  Fourthly, those countries like to settle in the United Kingdom for the reason that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned—we have not accepted the social on-costs of labour which are such a burden to German, French and Italian companies. It is the reason why we have not taken on the social chapter. I hope that we will never take on the social chapter, because it would be a powerful disincentive to come to the United Kingdom.
  I want to refer to one successful industry—the pharmaceutical industry—and sound something of a gipsy's warning to the Secretary of State. Before doing so, I must declare an interest, because I advise a large pharmaceutical company in Kent. I draw the attention of the House to a recent statement of the Secretary of State for Health who suggested that she would curb the drugs budget once again by increasing the number of therapeutic categories that would be limited for prescription.
  The pharmaceutical industry contributes £1·2 billion each year to the trade balance. It has research and development of £1·3 billion, which is 18 per cent. of the industry's turnover in the United Kingdom. The industry is immensely successful. It is another example of inward investment taking place in the United Kingdom because large American companies have chosen to do their European R and D for the pharmaceutical industry in this country. The American companies like the quality of our scientists. That is very important. We must cherish that quality, and we must do everything we can to build it up.
  I am worried by the recent warning of the Secretary of State. I have already said that we will substantially damage confidence in the pharmaceutical industry if we take hasty, short-term measures to curb the drugs bill. I ask Ministers to examine the matter carefully before introducing such a restriction because there is huge over-capacity in pharmaceutical manufacturing in Europe. Once we pass 1 January and enter the single market, the pharmaceutical industry will take steps to rationalise manufacturing. Manufacturing gives us the trade surplus of £1·2 billion, and it employs many people. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take on board those words and will speak to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  729
  We are unlikely to see a substantial return to the heavy engineering, low-tech, metal-bashing industries which made this country's manufacturing base during the 19th century. However, we shall need to cherish the new industries which come in through inward investment or are generated in the United Kingdom by our own entrepreneurs.
  I accept everything that the Secretary of State said about the factors for recovery being in place. The only missing ingredient is confidence. Every step that the Secretary of State and other Ministers take should be designed to bolster confidence, not to do it down.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) mentioned his desire to see the abolition of the wages councils. He suggested that the continuation of the councils would be an impediment to employment. He will not be surprised to know that I do not agree with him. Winston Churchill established the wages councils for a good reason—the protection which they offered employees.
  The hon. Gentleman then referred to the Sunday Trading Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I recall that it was also Winston Churchill who said that Sunday was the greatest British institution and, therefore, should be prized beyond all others. He recognised the importance of Sunday as a day of rest for workers and a time when people could be with their families. If additional shop work were made available, I for one should like to see it shared with those who are unemployed at present, rather than forcing many shop workers, against their wishes, to be employed on a Sunday.
  I wish to take up two comments that the Secretary of State made. She talked a great deal about improved industrial relations. We are all happy that the days of wildcat strikes and secondary picketing are behind us. I supported the measures that the Government took in 1980 to stop secondary picketing and their introduction of the secret ballot. But the Secretary of State will agree that fear of unemployment is one of the reasons for the improvement in industrial relations.
  In the longer term, rather than relying on fear we should encourage a climate based on co-operation and partnership—two words which the Secretary of State used in her speech. We should look to the German model of industrial partnership, co-operation and profit sharing—the three Rs of rights, representation and reward.
  I took slight exception to the Secretary of State's suggestion that anyone who raised the plight of those who were out of work talked Britain down. She implied that there was a lack of patriotism in even daring to mention the number of people out of work. She said that we should be interested not in statistics and figures but in the individuals who lie behind them. No one in the Chamber would disagree with that. The figures reveal the scale and the effect of unemployment on the human personality and the families and communities in which they live.
  Rather than trading remarks across the Chamber, I hope that we can build on the Secretary of State's suggestion this afternoon that we need real partnership and co-operation to tackle this curse of unemployment. It is disingenuous to suggest that any Opposition Member
  730
  who expresses concern about the unemployed talks Britain down. By all means, highlight success in the Department of Employment or in the country—everyone is happy to hear about success stories—but we should never forget those who are not so lucky.
  Living in and representing a city such as Liverpool brings one face to face with the calamitous effect of long-term, institutionalised unemployment. This week the Liverpool Research Group in Macroeconomics, the accountants Ernst and Young and the Liverpool Daily Post published their biannual report on the prospects of our local economy.
  The remarks made by Professor Patrick Minford conflict with some of the comments made by the Secretary of State today. He said:
  "the prospects for reviving employment on Merseyside are poor. Instead, what we are forecasting is a continuation of falling employment in virtually all sectors accompanied by a steady outflow of the labour force and population."
  That is a depressing picture for those of us who have seen a massive decline in the numbers of people living and working in the Greater Liverpool area in the past 20 years. A nation of Dick Whittingtons has been created in which a policy of national mobility has sucked people away.
  Ms. Angela Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a bit rich to hear strictures from Patrick Minford about our economic success, or lack of it, when he was one of the leading lights of the mad, fundamentalist economic movement known as monetarism which so afflicted the first part of the Conservative period in office? Does he agree that that ideological dogma has had a great deal to do with the persistently high rates of unemployment experienced by Liverpool, Wallasey and other parts of the country in the past decade?
  Mr. Alton: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) obviously missed the irony of my remarks. I quoted Professor Minford because the Government have consistently quoted him in the past 13 years in support of their monetarist approach. Instead of dragging out of the cupboard quotations from the Kingfisher group, as the Secretary of State did earlier, I thought that it would be interesting for the House to hear from someone who has been a supporter of the Government's policies in the past 13 years—the Government would not deny that—and is a well-known monetarist.
  Professor Minford's forecast for the Merseyside economy does not bear out some of what the Secretary of State said. I hope that his forecasts and the soothsayers will be proved wrong. I do not want to talk down the prospects for recovery on Merseyside any more than I want to talk down the prospects for recovery in Britain, but we must listen to what people are saying and look at the reality of life in areas like Merseyside.
  On Merseyside more than 17 per cent. of the people are unemployed. We have had the bleak news this week of further redundancies at Cammell Laird. I am sure that the hon. Members for Wallasey and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will speak further about those redundancies, if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The prognosis is not good for Merseyside and the Government's fatalistic and defeatist approach will be of little comfort to individuals, families and communities who face the curse of further unemployment and the possibility of literally 50 years on the dole.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Surely the reality is that the trade union barons have brought Liverpool almost to its knees. Has not their dogma, stupidity and irresponsibility over many years made it so difficult for Liverpool to attract inward investment?
  Mr. Alton: I stand second to none—the hon. Member for Birkenhead would probably stand in my company—in saying that we have fought Militant and other extreme groups about which we have heard this afternoon. We have seen such groups trade on unemployment in Merseyside. However, it would be wrong to deduce that we have a workshy labour force or that people on Merseyside do not give as much value for money as the next people. That is not true. Many companies in Merseyside operate just as successfully as companies elsewhere. We now have one of the highest productivity records in the country.
  One needs only to visit a place such as Liverpool Freeport to see business which is booming, with record profits and levels of trade last year. Where the trade unions work in partnership, they can be a positive force. So let us not be simply anti-trade union or anti-workers. We require a partnership such as the Secretary of State referred to earlier. Measures such as the abolition of the wages councils will not facilitate the creation of such a partnership.
  In Liverpool, 40,000 people are without jobs. In the north-west region, 254,000 men and 75,000 women are without work. In our country, 2·8 million people languish on the dole queues. In October this year a further 24,000 British people joined the other 17 million Europeans who are currently unemployed.
  Communities that have depended on traditional forms of work have fared especially badly. Shipbuilding and coal mining communities are simply the latest and most graphic examples of that. In such communities there is an acute sense of abandonment, desolation and hopelessness.
  if we are without work, the issue is direct and immediate. It brings into question previous jobs, provision for the family, coping with old age, what to do each day, how to pay back loans and mortgages, what other people—including our marriage partners and children—will think of us and what the future holds. Other tragedies such as alcoholism, depression, marital breakdown, homelessness and even death are all associated with job loss. For young people, with no prospect of work, there is often bitterness, alienation and apathy.
  I was especially worried by the way in which the plight of young unemployed people was casually brushed to one side this afternoon. Most of us know the truth of the old saying that the devil will always find mischief for idle hands. One only needs to see young people hanging around on street corners, with nothing to do and nowhere to go, to understand their plight. It is not an excuse for lawlessness or committing crimes and it is not the only reason for crime. However, there is a connection between the listlessness, frustration and boredom of being out of work and the one crime committed every two seconds and high levels of drug abuse—0·5 million people have taken Ecstasy and 100,000 are addicted to drugs generally. Being unemployed means having nothing to do, and that can rapidly come to mean having nothing to do with the rest of us.
  Most of us view unemployment from the outside and we are frightened by it. It is a threat to affluence, status and
  732
  our place within the community. We are right to be frightened, because a substantial proportion of no-job families remain locked into poverty and worklessness. In Britain today 2 million children live in families afflicted by poverty; 30,000 families live in hostel accommodation; 150,000 16 to 19-year-olds experience homelessness. Frequently those are also the people without jobs.
  What are we to do? I wish to mention three things—the sharing of jobs, new job creation and better training. First, we should abandon fatalism and defeatism, which suggest that nothing can be done. Markets can be reshaped and institutions can be restructed in ways which give a strong and positive value to employment.
  In Liverpool, the city's coat of arms bears the mildly ironic Latin words,
  "Deus nobis haec otia fecit"—
  God has provided for us this leisure. Instead of long-term and enforced leisure for 15 per cent. of our population—the figure is rising—we should devise ways in which to share the available work.
  Some areas and families are job-rich, and others have no jobs. Many parents would willingly take a sabbatical away from their career to help to bring up their children or to care for a disabled person or an aged relative. They would do so if the tax and benefit systems recognised the value of such a commitment. That would free work for others and help to prevent the high costs of vandalism, crime, work failure, low educational achievement and statutory personal supervision, which so often stem from family breakdown.
  Earlier retirement and sabbaticals for training or time out for further educational development also free work, while enhancing the quality of the work force. At present we have a crude system of work sharing. It is called unemployment—90 per cent. have a job and 10 per cent. have not. Surely we can do much better than that.
  In Britain, we need to re-learn how to share, but we must also learn to create new work, and that is my second point. All around us tasks are waiting to be done. Surely it cannot be beyond our wit to find creative ways to harness the abilities and talents of hundreds of thousands of unemployed people. Energy conservation schemes make particular sense, since they can be targeted at low-income households as well as providing jobs.
  Construction jobs represent a low inflationary way to put people into work and an investment in infrastructure, which is falling apart. Often our public services are a disgrace and in many areas the local environment is tacky and tatty. The condition of many people's homes is deplorable: 2·4 million public sector homes are in need of repairs of more than £1,000 each; 909,000 homes are unfit for human habitation; and 463,000 homes lack basic amenities. Work is waiting to be done and we are paying construction workers to remain idle on the dole. If construction workers lived together in communities and were easily identifiable as such, I am sure that the people of Cheltenham and elsewhere would have been on the streets marching in the same numbers that we saw when mining communities were faced with 30,000 redundancies. There is work waiting to be done and skilled people waiting to do it.
  Anyone would think that it costs us nothing to keep people out of work. Apart from the social costs that I have mentioned, there are economic costs. This year it will cost more than £20 billion in benefits and in lost taxes, which would otherwise have been received by the Exchequer if

  733
  those people were in work. That is the cost of keeping people on the dole and it is a tremendous waste of national resources.
  Someone asked how one would finance schemes to provide work. It is not merely a question of running up the public sector borrowing requirement, although goodness knows it is lower than in many of our competitor countries and there may be room for some additional borrowing to finance schemes. In addition, there should be a small increase in taxation to pay for them. Above all, the cost to the Exchequer of keeping people out of work is surely justification enough for translating those resources into creating jobs rather than keeping people unemployed.
  In unpublished evidence to the Select Committee on Employment on 21 October, the Secretary of State suggested that the annual cost of keeping one person unemployed was about £9,000. The other side of that coin is that, in 1991, the average income generated by every extra 100,000 people in employment would have been about £1·7 billion. That figure might be an overestimate, because many unemployed people might not be able to get the most highly paid or productive jobs, but the implication of such a loss of revenue contributions holds good. Unemployment is not an efficient way to lubricate the economy.
  Thirdly, in addition to sharing and the need to reallocate resources to job creation, we need to consider training and future employability. A dirigiste and often meritricious approach to education has left us with 25 per cent. of our work force—that is 6 million people—illiterate and innumerate. Our failure to educate properly leaves people unemployable. Only 35 per cent. of our 16 to 18-year-olds go into full-time education or training, compared with 79 per cent. in the United States and 66 per cent. in France. We also secure fewer graduates: 132 per 1,000 of 21-year-olds, compared with 236 in Japan, 230 in America and 202 in France.
  As the Confederation of British Industry has urged, we must be more ambitious about increasing the number of graduates. The Secretary of State referred to the additional people who will join the training and enterprise councils. She said that places for about 1·5 million people would be found. It would be absurd not to welcome that, but as I told the Minister who will reply to the debate last week during Employment Question Time, not everyone receives a place on a TEC course. The real challenge for the TECs is what they do about people who have come straight from school and who are illiterate or innumerate. What will they do about disabled people on projects such as the Greenbank project which has lost its funding and which I mentioned to him last week?
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that part of the package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put together includes help for people suffering from problems of literacy and in-numeracy, which I agree is an element of some of the problems faced by the long-term unemployed.
  Mr. Alton: I am glad to hear that and will give the package a fulsome welcome. Otherwise that group of people will become the long-term unemployed, for whom no one will be able to find places. It is all too easy for TECs
  734
  to take in the cream—people who leave school relatively well qualified. People who have no qualifications will be the challenge and I welcome the Minister's intervention.
  Training, sharing and job creation are all the business of Government. Sadly, inflation has dominated the political debate and unemployment has been treated as a residual concern. Caring about both is not stirring oil and water. Any economic system that ignores its impact on people, idolises the market and elevates the cult of the individual is doomed to failure. Our failed economic system has left people unable to find jobs. Businesses have closed and inadequate funds have been made available for public expenditure. Community and family life are often in tatters. That is a long, bitter and unflattering record.
  The emptiness and failure of present policies should serve to stimulate a long overdue change, and I am grateful to the official Opposition for providing us with the opportunity to mention such issues this afternoon and for enabling us to contribute to that debate.
  6.7 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) mentioned wages councils in his opening remarks. He may find himself on his own in supporting them. In an earlier debate I challenged the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on whether he would reintroduce them should—God forbid—there ever be a Labour Government. He chose not to respond to that question.
  Ms. Joyce Quin: I am interested in the hon. Lady's remark, because she and her hon. Friend the Minister have misrepresented our views in that way on a few occasions. I hope that she will accept that there is a world of difference between a party which wants to abolish the wages councils, full stop, and one which wants an effective system of wage protection, which might include such councils or another system. The gulf between the two main parties on that issue is very wide.
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is entitled to her interpretation of the record of the House, but I commend her to re-read it. It was clear that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras refused to answer my intervention in the affirmative.
  I should like to declare an interest as I am a director of Kidsons Impey, a firm of chartered accountants, and I am also an employer and so I hope that I can bring to the House a businesswoman's approach to employment and unemployment.
  The motion on the Order Paper typifies the way in which Labour Members view the country today. At a time when all agree that we require confidence, it is couched in words which would not inspire confidence in anyone listening to the debate or watching from outside as a potential inward investor.
  Labour Members always look at the bottle as being half empty. It is time that they discovered that it might be half full. I wish tonight to examine the matter from a constructive standpoint, looking at the bottle as being half full. For a start, let us examine some of the jobs that have been created, some of the work practices that are expanding employment opportunities and the positive steps that we have taken to support our businesses and industries.

  735
  No Government want high unemployment. In a democracy, the power to govern comes from the votes of the citizens, and an unhappy and unemployed citizen is far less likely to vote for a party which presided over his or her misery. And misery it is, for I have several friends who in the last year or so, through no fault of theirs, have become unemployed and unable to find work. They want support and ideas, but they do not want tea and sympathy. They want action, and that is what the Government have taken.
  Governments do not directly create jobs, except in the public sector. The wealth-creating private sector creates jobs. Even so, Government must create the conditions in which the private sector can flourish. Those conditions must include low inflation, low interest rates, low unit wage costs, low taxation, good industrial relations and opportunities to reskill and retrain. That is the environment for growth that the Government have created, despite the recession, in which all the main world economies have hit rock bottom more or less at the same time.
  Business is beginning to respond to those conditions, and I want the House to consider some of the good news stories of the past week. Today, Rover announced that it is calling in workers for the first time to work on a Sunday. That is being done in response to increasing orders for the Rover 800. DH L International, the courier company, has announced that it is planning to increase its work force by 23 per cent. QPL International, the microelectronics company, is creating 280 new jobs at INMOS, International Metal Oxide Semiconductors.
  In the last week, the House of Commons Library has been tracking articles containing announcements of new jobs, and several thousand jobs are listed. They are appearing in the national press, revealing the intentions of industry and business, responding to the environment that the Government have created.
  The small and medium-sized business sector does not get well reported and is often not properly identified, even though it comprises much of our business and creates jobs on a daily basis. The number of jobs created in the last week alone is a story that speaks for itself. Unfortunately, that story does not make the headlines. That is a crying shame because we need to demonstrate such results to restore confidence.
  Opposition Members claim that we have squandered our European presidency. I strongly disagree. On 4 December, the employment Ministers unanimously adopted a resolution underlining the importance of increasing efficiency and the need to support new businesses. Under the British presidency, we have started to move the Community away from rigid directives that would strangle business and growth.
  The social chapter and the working time directive are examples of this. What would Labour Members tell the shift workers at Alcan in my constituency who have arrived at an arrangement with management to work 12-hour shifts Monday to Thursday so that they can have Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays with their families? That arrangement suits the workers and the management. Would Labour Members tell them that the working time directive would not allow them to work those hours, so that they would not have an improved quality of life and time with their families?
  Europe is starting to take a lead from the United Kingdom. They are looking with interest at a country which, except for Denmark, has the highest proportion of
  736
  its adult population in employment, has one of the lowest unemployment rates for the under 25s and has working conditions that have attracted the largest proportion of inward investment from countries outside the Community. In difficult economic circumstances, we are making great strides, and business and industry are pressing ahead, particularly in their flexible working arrangements, which are being adopted to reflect the changing needs of the working population.
  Since 1979, many changes in working patterns have taken place. As of June of this year, compared with June 1979, there had been a 65 per cent. increase in male part-time employment and a 20 per cent. increase in female part-time employment. Adopting changes such as job sharing have made that possible, and job sharing is now practised widely, notably and successfully in the House of Commons Library, which provided the statistics that I am using.
  Industry has been quick to grasp other ideas that have made employment fit more aptly the needs of people who are concerned with the quality of their lives. Flexitime, home working, the provision of creches and working on Sundays are now options available to many who work.
  Sadly, there are no jobs for life. We need look only at Japan—several hon. Members have referred to the situation there—which prided itself on a system supposed to guarantee work until retirement. The economic slowdown revealed that utopia for what it was—social engineering that fell at the first hurdle in a recession. Perhaps Japan will begin to look more closely at the United Kingdom working environment, in which self-employment has risen by 58 per cent. since 1979.
  Sanyo Electric, which is planning to reduce its work force in Japan by over 2,000, is offering early retirement to employees over 50, saying that that will enable them to start something different before it is too late. Society in Japan is changing, and it is clearly changing towards our pattern. So perhaps in the way in which we learnt some of the good points of Japanese business, they will benefit from our good employment practices.
  Having told the House of some of the new jobs that have been announced and some of our work practices, I move on to some of the positive steps that the Government are taking. The autumn statement was a milestone, carefully targeting areas of weakness in the economy. It was designed to boost employment and help the unemployed back to work. We have already heard in the debate of many favourable responses to the autumn statement.
  Our withdrawal from the ERM, no matter what one's view, gave us the opportunity to reduce interest rates. That has been of direct benefit to the employment-creating sector of the economy—the private sector.
  Ms. Eagle: Did the hon. Lady agree with the Government's policy to join the ERM in the first instance, even though interest rates thereafter increased dramatically? She is now praising the fact that we were forced out of the ERM.
  Mrs. Gillan: We are discussing employment—a subject that is supposed to be close to the hearts of Labour Members—not Europe. I would be happy to debate European matters with the hon. Lady on another occasion.

  737
  No matter what one thinks about our withdrawal from the ERM, it gave us an opportunity to reduce interest rates. The businesses with which I deal have appreciated that reduction, which has helped them at a time of recession.
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been working hard at the Department of Trade and Industry and his announcement about one-stop shops was designed to help small and medium-sized businesses, which are so important in job creation.
  Mr. David Hanson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gillan: No, I have given way enough.
  In her opening speech my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave many examples from her Department, which the Opposition may notice is called the Department of Employment, not the "Department of Unemployment". Those benefits and measures add up to significant Government action to encourage the economy and our businesses and industries.
  The economic report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the United Kingdom in 1991 described the Department of Employment's activities and reforms, such as deregularisation, privatisation and the reform of employment law, as "impressive" and said that they had helped to reverse the United Kingdom's relative economic decline.
  The Government's formula for business will put people back to work and their policies will create an environment for success. We believe that a partnership between Government and business will create real jobs. It is now up to business to build on and add to that framework. Unlike the Opposition, we are backing British jobs and business. There is no sign of leadership, business acumen, reality or confidence-giving from the Opposition.
  My right hon. Friend described the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras as a mouse in sheep's clothing, but I must admit that he has surpassed himself in size by following dinosaur policies that are outmoded and outrageous and, thankfully for business, industry and jobs, he is out of power.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall not follow in detail the speeches of the four speakers who preceded me, but I wish to pick up themes from their speeches.
  The Secretary of State is not only a good but also a highly intelligent person. I want her to imagine what it would be like for somebody who had been asleep for 30 years to wake up and listen to her speech. Would that person recognise the country as we see it or would he think that her speech was relevant to a Britain of 30 years ago? We thank her for most of the measures that she announced in her speech, such as job clubs. Although they are all important, they are totally inadequate as a strategy for dealing with the ever-growing number of people captured by unemployment.
  The Secretary Of State gave it away at the beginning of her contribution by talking about the "distress" of unemployment as though it were like suffering from a heavy cold. Unemployment is not merely distressful. There is an anger and despair felt by a large number of our
  738
  constituents. They feel a hopelessness about the situation and we must continue to represent that feeling in this debate. It is crucial that that is the cornerstone of building a policy to move this country back to full employment.
  The motion mentions the high level of redundancies, so I wish to discuss the issue of Cammell Laird. As the House knows, last week the owners of Cammell Laird threw in the towel. They threw up their hands in despair and said that they could see no alternative for our yard but closure. I had a brief opportunity to tell the House then that the workers and the people of Merseyside would not accept that scenario because unemployment is already too high in our area. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) the official unemployment rate is 14 per cent. The grandparents, parents and offspring of some of the families whom we represent are currently unemployed. Our newspapers carry reports of whole streets in our area in which not one person is at work.
  To be told that the owners of Cammell Laird intend to destroy the livelihood and skills centre in Merseyside is not acceptable to us because we have seen what the future is like if there is no work. We are not merely holding out a begging bowl. Cammell Laird is a priceless asset of this country. Its closure should be not simply a local issue but a national one if we are to survive as a great trading nation. We shall therefore fight against its closure. It will be a national fight and we shall not simply sit idly by or make speeches in this House about the criminal loss of skills and the skills centre. I hope that the country will support us in our fight because we know that, without such a skills centre, Merseyside has no future. If Merseyside is closed skills centre by skills centre, the same future will envelop the whole nation.
  The fight goes well beyond Birkenhead and beyond the Merseyside borders, because it concerns the country's manufacturing base. If we are to say that some of the most highly skilled and precious members of the work force can be discarded because the employers are at the end of their wits, and do not know what to do, it is a grim scenario not just for us but for the nation.
  For those reasons, I am happy to spell out in more detail why we shall not accept that closure and why the Government should not stand idly by and accept what Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. has handed down as a death sentence to Cammell Laird. The Government are closely involved in the position that has been reached and with the future of the workers in Merseyside. The fact that the Government sold that taxpayers' asset for £1 excites local constituents more than anything else. How could something so valuable have been valued in that way and now be so easily discarded by those whom the Government trusted with ownership?
  The Government are VSEL's only supplier, so they have an enormous interest in its behaviour. As we now know—it will become known because we intend to repeat it—they hold a golden share in VSEL. At this stage, we are asking the Government not actively to intervene but to keep an active watching brief. Our first and crucial fight is to wrestle away from VSEL the title deeds and dowry to that yard so that we can go our own way. When that task is complete, we shall look to the Government for practical and positive help. It will not be on the scale of the intervention of the 1960s. We know that if we are to survive we must play a part in mapping out the sort of

  739
  positive employment policies that the Government must pursue if they are to beat back the rising tide of unemployment.
  I am happy to note that the Secretary of Slate for Employment has returned to the Front Bench, for which I am grateful to her. I am now able to say to her that I hope that we have heard for the last time the sort of speech that she gave today. Every one of the measures that she mentioned was proper and important, but her speech did not match the urgency felt by the millions of people in this country who are today drowning in a sea of unemployment. Our task today is partly to convince the Secretary of State of that.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on being brave enough to talk about full employment and placing that once again on the agenda. I have some ideas to pass on to my hon. Friend to use in his fight in the party. It is noticeable—I shall say this before anyone else does—that full employment is not mentioned in our motion. If policies for full employment are not contained in the Labour party manifesto at the next election, the Labour party will face its fifth election defeat, and deservedly so. When my hon. Friend fights his corner in the shadow Cabinet, I hope that he will take back this message with the urgency that we shall deploy in today's debate to show the importance of having both the political and intellectual courage to begin a debate on full employment.
  The issue of the wasted opportunity of our presidency of the European Community has been raised, but our presidency is not yet over. The summit at Edinburgh has yet to take place and it is not impossible for the British Government to start to give a lead in showing what is necessary if we are to return to full employment. We cannot have full employment in one country; we must have full employment in surrounding countries, too. To achieve that, we must acknowledge the power structure in Europe.
  Given that the Government are usually realistic about power politics, I am surprised that they seem unable to acknowledge the power structure in Europe. Both Front-Bench teams wish to link this country to a Europe dominated by a super-power. Ever since men and women have formed tribes, let alone nation states, no tribe or nation state has willingly surrendered sovereignty to weaker groups around it. The starting point for our policies must be the power-house that Germany represents in Europe.
  We should give up our extraordinary attempts to blame the Bundesbank for defending German interests—it would be surprising if it did not. We must accept that policy in Europe must be shaped by acknowledging Germany's power structure in the Community. Therefore, if we were seriously thinking about the importance of the German economy and of the Bundesbank reducing interest rates, the autumn statement would have broken ground and talked about the autumn statement for Europe. It would have mentioned, not merely public investment here, but what could be done by the Community to promote European investment into former East Germany. If we could lower the burden that is falling on former West Germany, we could restart the motor force in Germany, reduce interest rates in the Bundesbank and benefit from the results.
  One idea to take to Edinburgh at the weekend is that the British Prime Minister can provide leadership, and we
  740
  can begin to think about forming a full employment policy in Europe. However, in order to do so we must start by considering the power structure in Europe—centred around Germany.
  Another idea that we could take to the summit would be to look at the markets beyond Germany—those countries that have traditionally bought from this country—and press for a Marshall aid plan for central Europe and beyond, not just on humanitarian grounds, although it is important enough to ensure that people do not starve, but to ensure that those countries have enough money to buy goods. They will use that money to buy from markets from which they have traditionally bought—this country and western Europe. We can provide leadership to the western world on the scope of the Marshall aid plan for central Europe and beyond.
  We should not stand on our dignity but try to learn from what other countries and their constituent parts are doing to try to achieve full employment. In another debate in the House last week I was able to mention that German trade unions are not discussing a wage or salary freeze, but have something much more important on the agenda. They are beginning to discuss, both among themselves and with German employers, what the employers' response would be if the unions held back on wage increases and productivity increases were used, not to bring wage increases, but to expand the job base. That is an important idea which should commend itself to us, particularly given its source—a German trade union movement that is keen on success.
  We could give to Europe an idea that worked well in the 1930s in this country. When the then Government felt that unemployment was almost overwhelming the country, they said that they were prepared to go back to the drawing board, and they asked for ideas about how to return to full employment. They set up the Economic Advisory Committee so that those with ideas could advance them for use in the Government's scheme and the public debate.
  We learnt yesterday that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a small group of economists who are to advise him on whether his predictions for growth are right. I hope that the Government will build on that modest proposal, admit that the challenge is defeating them and that they are prepared to open their doors to reasonable discussion as they are anxious to learn. I hope that the Government will admit that the old ideas that they thought acted as their map and compass as they went about daily life can no longer be used as their means of steerage. They need a new language to encapsulate the new ideas if they are to achieve full employment.
  Mr. Ralph Howell: The hon. Gentleman talked about new ideas and I agree with much of what he has said. However, I disagree with him when he talks about full employment. He seems to suggest that if we have better management—whether by one party or another—we can achieve full employment, but that is not on. We need a fundamental rethink greater than the one we had when Beveridge introduced his report 50 years ago. Would the hon. Gentleman support the idea of establishing the right to work? Until we get down to that, there is no way that we can achieve the full employment of which he talks.
  Mr. Field: Labour Members used to introduce a right-to-work Bill every year. Therefore, I have no

  741
  difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's argument. The other issue that he raised reflected the tenor of my speech. If we are to return full employment to the agenda, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the Labour party should, we must not allow ourselves to be laughed out of court by people stating that it was a fluke of history in the 1940s and 1950s. We must think new thoughts in order to achieve our objective. The debate will be difficult and tortuous, and people will accuse us of disloyalty and misrepresent what we say, but unless we start that debate—and do so in the Chamber—we shall misrepresent the views of the growing number of unemployed people outside the House. It is their views that we should bring to today's debate.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I apologise for missing the opening moments of the hon. Gentleman's speech. Before talking about the Bundesbank looking after its own interests, he said that the first task was to wrest from VSEL the title deeds to the yard. I appreciate the importance of the Cammell Laird shipyard to his constituency and to the north-west, but surely VSEL owes a duty not only to its shareholders but to its other employees based at Barrow? I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can expect Laird to ignore the £20 million of liabilities that it incurred along with the purchase of the yard for a nominal sum of £1 and to present that as a dowry to his constituents, given these other responsibilities. It is important to the economy of the north-west that the great skills of the work force at Cammell Laird be used to the benefit of the whole economy, but I find it difficult to see how the hon. Gentleman can expect the shareholders and other employees of VSEL to make this sort of sacrifice just for his constituents.
  Mr. Field: The House has been tolerant and has allowed me a great deal of time to develop my ideas, but it would take me just as long again to answer the hon. Gentleman's points. All I can say is that, if he wants answers, he had better watch this space. Answers will be given to his important points—they will not be brushed under the carpet.
  I repeat the sheer folly of our believing that we can sit idly by while a death sentence is handed down to one of our most important skill centres. Of course there are balances to be struck, and VSEL has certain duties. The Members who represent the constituencies in question have to push those matters; they are not my responsibility.
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speeches or read them when I have the opportunity. He is held in high regard on both sides of the House, but I must tell him, not in a carping way, that, having listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the speech by him, I have not heard a single proposal on how full employment might be achieved. All we have heard are calls for debates and for listening to people. We should like to hear the specific actions that the hon. Gentleman wants the Government to take. He will find an audience which is more than willing to consider positive proposals.
  Mr. Field: I almost despair of my ability to put a message across clearly. I have said that we have to think in a European context; we cannot think of Britain as an
  742
  island unto itself—at least, when it comes to employment policies. I have also said that it is crucial that the Government have the European canvas on which to paint during their presidency. That presidency is not yet at an end.
  I have also put forward two proposals which would give us, if not magically full employment, then the building blocks to begin the process of reaching full employment. The first point was that, given the transitional problems that Germany has gone through since unification, it will naturally put its own economic interests before the wider economic interests of Europe. Secondly, I argued that since Germany is such a powerful and dominant economy in Europe, it is in our interest that it should make the transition successfully. I said, thirdly, that it would have been sensible, to move Europe back to full employment, if we had spent the past six months thinking of measures to help the German economy make the transition. The resources of a wider Europe might have been deployed to that end. Just discussing such measures might have brought about a different attitude on the part of the German Government and Bundesbank.
  I also spoke about what used to be our big markets in central Europe—they are now largely drying up for lack of finance. I proposed thinking about a Marshall aid plan on as imaginative a scale as the Americans offered western Europe after the second world war. I said that we should bring in such a plan for humanitarian reasons and for sound economic reasons.
  In what I had hoped would be a 10-minute contribution I have not managed to set the world to rights or been able to tell the House all the necessary policy measures to move us back to full employment, but I did want to register the point that this is the first time I have ever heard our Front-Bench spokesmen use the phrase "full employment" to signify one of our objectives. I do not mean to downgrade what my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said, but it is easier to say the phrase than to work out policies to achieve it. That is what we must now do.
  It would be a mockery if the hon. Member for Birkenhead, speaking about the need to return to full employment, did not end on the note where he began—the possible destruction of yet more jobs at Cammell Laird. I hope that I have convinced the House and others who may be listening outside it that we are utterly serious in our campaign to get the title deeds back and to find the money to ensure that Laird has a future until such time as this House takes a more relaxed view of debates on returning to full employment.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke with characteristic passion about the plight of his constituents who are to be made redundant by Cammell Laird. It is natural in such circumstances to look for political solutions. I know nothing about the title deeds or the other details, but the hon. Gentleman also talked about wider issues, including economic policy in a European context. He seemed to suggest that we might have done more to help the Germans through a difficult transitional period. My guess is that most British voters would probably feel that they had already done enough, given the high interest rates that we have had to put up with for the past couple of years,

  743
  largely as a result of German reunification. Those rates were not anticipated by those of us who supported Britain's entry into the exchange rate mechanism in October 1990, but they became painfully more clear as the months passed.
  It is tempting to assume that there must be some kind of a political solution, and politicians themselves are occasionally guilty of giving voters the impression that there must be some kind of political solution. But huge changes have been taking place for several years in European economies, and my guess is that the change at Cammell Laird is one of those. I know nothing about the yard's order books, but I do know that if a business runs out of orders it does not matter how much finance is put into it: if it cannot generate sales or orders, in the end it is not a viable business. People would be better off accepting that fact and not despairing. They should look at the examples provided by the areas of Britain which have been through this trauma before.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) has been a constant advocate of the interests of Corby town, which went through the same sort of trauma because it depended heavily on the steel industry. Today it has diversified into many other industries, and I see no reason why Merseyside should not do the same. I know that there is a feeling that Members who represent southern constituencies do not understand the problems of Merseyside, but six or seven years ago I visited Merseyside at the invitation of its churches to see for myself. I have also been there many other times because when I worked in industry I travelled all over the country. Once I even got up at 7 am to address a group of dockers on the options available to them under the Social Security Act 1975. They asked me, "Why are you coming here, guy? You're the bloke who's supposed to know about pensions." We were consulting the work force as we were required to by the legislation.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the difference between this and previous recessions? It is not that smoke-stack industries are being wiped out; highly skilled jobs which are an integral part of a successful economy are being lost. I recently spoke in the House about similar job losses in British Nuclear Fuels Limited, where some of the most skilled engineers in the north-west have lost their jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has mentioned a similar group. Recently I made a speech about Shell workers. All these workers hold highly skilled jobs, and the comparison with Corby no longer holds good.
  Mr. Smith: My impression was that those working in the steel industry at Corby were also highly skilled people and the sad fact is that, however much training we may have, if there is no demand for those skills we have to consider ways in which we can adapt. That is a harsh fact, but because of the pace of economic change there may be a need to persuade people of the need to change in mid career. That is not easy to do. I am the first to accept that but it is the current situation. I mentioned Corby as one example but there are many other examples. South Wales is an area highly dependent on industries such as steel and coal. Today, through the successes of the Government in
  744
  attracting inward investment, the area has diversified hugely to the point where it has lower unemployment than Greater London.
  Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Member comment on the report recently published by the University of Wales which commented on Government plans to regenerate south Wales, particularly the valleys initiative? That report came to the conclusion that it was little more than a publicity stunt and that not one penny of new money could be found. We who live and work in such communities know that the jobs attracted did not replace those in coal and steel but were very often low paid, part time and almost inevitably non-union. Has the hon. Member read that report and, if so, will he comment on it?
  Mr. Tim Smith: No. I have not read the report to which the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) refers, but I stick to my assertion that unemployment in Wales is now lower than it is in Greater London and that Wales and the Welsh Development Agency have been successful in attracting inward investment.
  Mr. Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the form of intervention we have seen in Wales is the type of interventionist policy that should be seen in the rest of the country?
  Mr. Smith: There may be a case for that kind of intervention elsewhere. The Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency have both been successes and if other regions would benefit from that kind of policy I would certainly support that.
  I want to make some comments about the European scene. We have heard much about the need to have some kind of integrated European policy but at present, far from the economies of Europe coming together, they are diverging in the way that they are developing and it is noteworthy that at present the German economy, which is often held up in this House as a great example of success, is moving into recession and German manufacturing industry finds itself in a very difficult position because it is not easy for employers to make the adjustments—the reductions in their labour force—which they may need to make. They are saddled with very high industrial costs. The result of this is striking because motor manufacturers in Germany are now looking outside that country to obtain their components. One of the most important side effects of Japanese inward investment in this country is that not only have the Japanese brought new standards of management and higher productivity to the companies in which they have invested, but they have insisted on much higher standards from their suppliers. We now see companies like Turner and Newall and GKN reaching new standards of quality.
  There was a story in the Financial Times in October which said:
  "Mercedes Benz, the German car manufacturer, says sterling is undervalued and the British economy underrated. The company nearly trebled its purchases of UK-produced motor components last year and expects them to grow further. Two other German companies, BMW and the Volkswagen/Audi group—now embracing SEAT of Spain and Skoda of Czechoslovakia—are also expanding their purchasing of components made in the UK and say they, too, expect further growth. All three say this growth would take place even without the devaluation of sterling following its withdrawal from the European exchange rate mechanism last month".

  745
  This is a remarkable transformation for the British motoring industry, and for the British motor components industry, and if we continue with this record of success we shall find, for the first time for many years, that in 1995 we shall have a positive balance of trade in motor cars and motor components.
  There are other reasons why investors now see this as a more secure and more stable environment.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about the rise of extremist parties and referred to Spain, Italy, Germany and France but notably, he did not refer to the United Kingdom. The simple reason is that we have policies designed to ensure that we have good community relations—as we have—because we have had tough immigration policies for many years. I do not think the picture that has been painted by some hon. Members is as gloomy as some would suggest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that this was not a one-way street. Many jobs are being lost but at the same time many jobs are being created and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the remarkable story that appeared last week about the MSF. That union has done a double U-turn and has not just signed with a Japanese company but signed a no-strike agreement with a Japanese company and both those policies were anathema to MSF only 12 months ago. The good thing is that its decisions will lead to the creation of 400 new jobs in Mansfield in Nottinghamshire and I am sure that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will welcome that, as will other hon. Members.
  It is good news because it is inward investment and it is coming from Japan, Germany and the United States. I would like the very welcome policies set out in the autumn statement reinforced by a further assertion of the importance of manufacturing to the United Kingdom because if I have one regret about the 1980s it is that the impression somehow got around—I am not sure who was responsible and there is not much point in pointing the finger in a particular direction—that manufacturing was unimportant. We should make it clear that that is not our view; that manufacturing is important, and that we welcome the establishment by the Confederation of British Industry of the National Manufacturing Council; that we hope that the Government will look very carefully at the recommendations addressed to them—only a third of the recommendations are, since many are addressed to manufacturers or the City.
  I would like to see the appointment of a Minister for manufacturing industry to make clear that the Government are totally committed. The CBI report underlines the importance of manufacturing. Although the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that there were 4·5 million people in manufacturing, the report suggests that the figure is 5 million and that another 5 million are dependent on manufacturing. It is important to this country. It is still a great trading nation and manufactures are largely traded. We have had some remarkable successes over the 1980s, with 50 per cent. of consumer spending being on manufactured goods and 70 per cent. of exports being manufactured, while £7 billion of corporation tax is paid by manufacturing industry.
  746
  The record over the past 10 years has been remarkable because productivity in manufacturing has risen by 58 per cent. and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asserted, that Britain's share of world trade is continuing to fall, according to the CBI, the United Kingdom's share of main manufacturing countries' exports has risen from a low of 7·6 per cent. in 1985 to 8·7 per cent. in 1991. There is a good story to tell on manufacturing exports. Even throughout the recession exports have continued to grow and manufacturing productivity, according to the CBI report, even over the past 12 months, has grown at twice the speed at which it has grown in Germany. There is a great deal of catching up to do and that is why it is important to place a new emphasis on the importance of manufacturing.
  If we do, we shall see a resurgence of economic activity in manufacturing and a growth in jobs—which is what everyone wants. There is a new emphasis on growth. The hon. Member for Birkenhead wants full employment. We shall achieve that only if we have an industry that is competitive and has high productivity. Ironically, sometimes that will mean the loss of jobs, as companies invest and displace jobs—but it is the only way. There will then be more jobs in the service industries that depend on manufacturing. We will create full employment by having low interest rates, low inflation, and high productivity. That is what I would like to see, and I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members support that.
  7 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: We hear every day of hundreds or thousands of new redundancies. The whole country is submerged under a tidal wave of unemployment. The Government do not have a clue what to do, and neither do they care. That was graphically shown recently when Ministers blithely and abruptly announced the colliery closures to the House. An extra 100,000 people were to lose their jobs without any consultation, even with the Department of Employment. The Government apparently proposed to blight the lives of 100,000 people and to throw them on the scrap heap, at a time of multi-million unemployment on a rising trend. The Government's solution was to pour petrol on the flames.
  The Government seemed surprised that the vast majority of the British public recoiled, were shocked by, and protested at that decision. Perhaps that is explained by the fact that the Conservatives have been in office for so long that they think that they can do anything they like.
  We now have close on 3 million unemployed claimants. Horrendous and scandalous though that figure is, it is a gross understatement. The statistics have been massaged and fiddled, and on a 1979 basis the figure is more like 4 million. A Department of Employment press release issued on 12 November recorded an increase of 391,000 claimants over the previous 12 months, but a 658,000 decrease in the employed work force. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of those thrown out of work do not show up in the official statistics—and many of them are women.
  It is self-evident that we can never have a good and decent society that is at ease with itself, and a country that functions properly, with mass unemployment. We will never have a proper welfare state with mass unemployment, because we could not afford one. The cost of the dole queue is ruining public finances. Each unemployed person costs the Exchequer about £9,000. At a time when

  747
  the Government's revenue is being slashed by the recession, they will soon have to pay about £30 billion to finance unemployment. That is why they are borrowing tens of billions of pounds every year—not to invest, but to pour down the black hole of unemployment.
  A good society and a country at ease with itself is one in which everyone who wants to work can work and is properly paid for doing so. Why is that not possible? After 13 years of Conservative rule, we have a vile and unjust society of mass unemployment. The Government say that our social system has no use for millions of our countrymen and women—that they are surplus to requirements and will be discarded and thrown on the scrap heap. Their lives will be blighted by misery and suffering through no fault of their own, but because, we are told, our country has no use for them and there are no opportunities for them to work. Such a society is immoral, and a Government who tolerate it should be turned out.
  Exactly 100 years ago Newham, in the east end of London, elected and sent to the House of Commons the first Labour Member of Parliament, Keir Hardie. In his maiden speech on 7 February 1893—and I doubt whether it would be allowed today—he moved an amendment to the Loyal Address, in which he made a moving and passionate attack on the evils of unemployment and on the poverty, hardship, and moral degradation that often followed unemployment in those days. He said:
  "There is no more pitiable spectacle in the world than the man willing to work who, day after day, vainly 'begs a brother of the earth, To give him leave to toil'."—[Official Report,7 February 1893; Vol. 8, c. 730.]
  In the century that has intervened since Hardie uttered those words, many things have changed and improved, but one evil that we thought had been vanquished has been brought back by the Government—the evil of mass unemployment.
  There were no statistics in Hardie's day, but he estimated that 10 per cent. of the working population were unemployed. In Newham today, there are 20,000 unemployed, which is equal to 20 per cent. of its potential working population—which is twice as bad as in Hardie's day. What a commentary that is on 13 years of Conservative government.
  We are dealing with not just statistics but human beings. Each human being thrown out of work represents an acute personal crisis, with the loss of the individual's confidence, identity, and self-esteem. A person is largely what he does, and if he does nothing, he begins to think that he is nothing. Soon, the anxieties, debt, despair, humiliation, and social and domestic problems pile up. The individual may find that he is threatened with homelessness. He soon realises how fragile was his previous comfortable existence, and that it depended on his wages or salary—and that once they were taken away he had nothing left.
  The individual will soon learn also of society's prejudices—of the people who think that there is plenty of work if one is willing to do it, or that there is something wrong with anyone who remains unemployed for any length of time. His self-esteem suffers, and the frustrations, pressures and tensions are so easily brought home to the family. That often leads to marriage breakdowns. Unemployment today is the main cause of poverty and social ills—of home repossessions, divorce, suicide, ill-health and crime.
  748
  One person who has spoken most movingly about unemployment is the Prime Minister, who told us how he was unemployed for nine months at the age of 19. He received unemployment benefit of £2.17s.6d a week, but the unemployment pay of a man and wife with two children is 40 per cent. less today in real terms. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that that is a price well worth paying.
  I want to mention crime. The Conservatives were largely elected on a law-and-order ticket, but since they have been in power crime has doubled. That is the fault not of the police but the Government, who have destroyed the hopes and livelihoods of millions of people. Senior police officers know that rising crime is linked to rising deprivation. In his final report as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Peter Imbert stated;
  "The notion that there is a link between crime and social deprivation is a compelling one."
  Any Conservative Member who pretends that is not so must ask why there is more crime in deprived areas and why, as deprivation has increased under this Government over the past 13 years, crime increased. Anyone who doubts the truth of that should ask insurance companies, who know that crime rates are higher in deprived areas, which leads them to charge higher premiums there.
  Every year 400,000 young people leave school. One quarter of those, 100,000, will join those who have never had a job; they are without work, and the 16 to 17-year-olds are without benefits as well and many are even without a training place. They live on estates with unemployment at levels of 20, 30, 40 or 50 per cent. Children are being born into families who have never been to work, where the parents have never had a job. These are people with no hope, no money, no prospects, no stake in our society; they are shut out and owing nothing to our society, completely alienated. They are people with no escape from their plight. They are people who never have a holiday. The nearest thing they have to a holiday is taking part in a riot or joyriding.
  What stops people committing crime is not the police; it is what might be called social control—concern about what other people, in particular people at work, will think. But what if they do not have a job, what if they have never had a job, what if they are never likely to have a job? Then, what the hell, what does it matter? That is why crime has doubled in the period of office of this Government. That should be recognised.
  Some people ask what happened in the 1930s when there was mass unemployment but not rising crime. There was a perception then that everybody was in the same boat. Then, no one had a car, no one had a television set; there was a commonality of poverty. Now, however, people live in areas surrounded by streets full of cars, surrounded by people who have holidays and houses full of consumer goods, but they are shut out.
  Kenneth Newman spoke in 1987 about
  "the volatile vapour of social discontent hanging over the city, looking for a spark to set it off."
  In those circumstances, it is completely unrealistic to expect the police to screw down the lid. That is why we have the doubling of crime, because we have the huge increase in unemployment. It is pointless to deny that.
  The Government must face their responsibilities and set a priority to full employment—and I am extremely pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on the Front Bench. This cannot be

  749
  left to the market. We have a market failure in Britain. We need public action. If we look around our towns and cities today, we see that there is work that needs to be done. We need something like Roosevelt's New Deal. During the war we had full employment to produce weapons of destruction. Is it really beyond our wit to bring about full employment now, to make the things that we need so desperately in the country at the moment?
  We need a counter-cyclical boost of public expenditure to aid recovery. We should be encouraging that across Europe, if possible. But what do we have? I am closing on this note, because the European dimension has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We have the outdated and outmoded Maastricht treaty, the whole thrust of which is deflationary. It ordains huge cuts in public expenditure right across Europe.
  If we in Britain were to get our public borrowing requirement down to 3 per cent. of gross domestic product as the treaty ordains, we should have to make cuts of £20 million, prolonging and deepening the recession. So I trust that when the Bill is in Committee we shall have a full examination of the employment effects of the treaty and that this matter will be fully dealt with, because in my view a strategy to bring back full employment will entail junking the Maastricht treaty.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Barry Legg: We have had a wide-ranging debate this evening and a lot of unanswered questions are still to be addressed. A number of Opposition Members have referred back to halcyon days in the 1950s and 1960s when they left school and there was full employment. They seemed to be searching for the holy grail that will take us back to those times. They have talked about full employment, and if we look at the periods of great economic success that the world has experienced, we see that the first requirement for prosperity, success and growth of employment is growth in trade. That is particularly what we had during the 1950s and 1960s.
  I am pleased that Britain is taking a lead in Europe on the issue of trade, and particularly on the GATT round, because addressing that problem and sorting it out will be of great benefit not only to Britain and Europe, but to the world as a whole. Growth in world trade will deliver prosperity and jobs.
  The other important factor that needs to be taken into account in considering how to generate jobs, wealth and stability is productivity. We hear very little about productivity from the Opposition Benches. If we look at the successful economies in the world, we see that the economies that are gaining strength, a greater share of world trade, greater employment and prosperity are those that are achieving gains in productivity.
  The world has been through a very difficult recession. Britain has experienced a difficult recession, which it is now coming out of, and I shall be saying more about that later.
  We have just seen some very good figures from the United States on growth and employment. In the United States, unemployment has just fallen from 7·4 to 7·2 per cent. and 100,000 new jobs have been created in the last month. What do we find lying behind that growth in
  750
  employment and that success in the United States? We find two things. The first is monetary easing and lower interest rates. Over the past 18 months the Americans have steadily reduced their interest rates and that has given their consumers another $65 billion to spend, because that is the amount of money they would otherwise be spending on servicing domestic debt.
  We have seen from Her Majesty's Government in the last few months welcome reductions in interest rates, which will help to provide a similar boost here in the United Kingdom.
  The second factor in growth in employment in America is the very good figures on productivity growth and unit labour costs. In the past year, unit labour costs in the United States have risen by 0·5 per cent., the best record in the last nine years.
  That is the sort of growth in productivity that we need in this country. Furthermore, reducing labour costs is not a route to poverty, as one might think from listening to some Opposition Members, but a route to wealth. At the same time as the United States produces figures showing how well it is containing labour costs, other figures show that income in the United States has risen by 1 per cent. in one month. Those are some of the trends that we need to see in the British economy to carry forward our recovery here.
  Again, we see that the successful economies in the Far East are taking a greater share of world trade and their people are becoming more prosperous. Looking at the underlying reasons, we find that those are deregulated economies in which the price of labour is very competitive.
  If we move back to the European scene, we find that Europe as a whole, particularly continental Europe, has not done very well over the past decade in terms of world trade. In the past seven years, Europe's share of world trade has declined by some 7 per cent. Some very worrying trends are apparent in the structure of labour costs, particularly in Germany, to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred earlier. Nearly 50 per cent. of German labour costs are now accounted for by non-wage costs. They are accounted for by social costs, and the German economy has been becoming more and more uncompetitive. In Germany, the average hourly labour cost is currently running at about $21; in Britain, it is running at about $12. We have achieved that significant gain by avoiding the heavy social costs that Opposition Members are only too keen for us to sign up to, in the form of the social chapter.
  We can take a lead in Europe, on GATT and on the social chapter. We should encourage our European partners not to opt for a route that, rather than improving employee welfare, will spread poverty and unemployment. Let us examine the unemployment records of some continental countries. In Germany, unemployment is rising rapidly: 50,000 more people were made unemployed there last month, and some 3 million are currently unemployed. That figure is far too large. In France, some 2·9 million are unemployed; in Italy, the figure is about 2·8 million. In Spain, some 17 per cent. of people are unemployed, while the figure is nearly 20 per cent. in Ireland.
  The figures for unemployment among people under the age of 25 are even more horrifying. In France, the rate is 21 per cent.; in Italy, it is 28 per cent.; in Spain, it is 31 per cent. Those are damaging figures, and I think that they

  751
  have some bearing on the remarks about the growth in extremism that were made earlier by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
  The economies that I have mentioned are experiencing a number of problems. Europe has not had an easy time over the past two years, but France, Italy and Spain all operate a minimum wage policy. The Labour party thinks that such a policy would benefit Britain, but minimum wage policies do not help the people at the bottom—they hurt them by keeping them out of work. Employers do not want to take on people whose skills are not as great as those of other workers, and they do not want to take on people who will need training. If they take on such people, they do not want to pay them more than the market rate. A minimum wage policy would in fact produce more unemployment, as the Labour party knows only too well.
  None of the recipes cited by Opposition Members, today and on other occasions, will help employment; on the contrary, they will increase unemployment. I shall wait with interest to see how Labour will develop the policy of full employment that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had the audacity to mention today.
  My constituency, like many others, has had a difficult time during the recession. Opposition Members tend to come up with figures relating to job losses, doom and disaster, but, despite the difficulties experienced by my constituency, I intend to highlight some of the good things that are happening in Milton Keynes, which is a typical English town. In the past 12 months, some 6,515 new jobs have been created there. That will not capture the headlines in the national newspapers, as did the announcement of the loss of 15,000 Post Office jobs over five years through natural wastage, because it is essentially the result of small, successful local businesses expanding their work forces.
  In the past year, 222 new working establishments have been started in Milton Keynes. That, too, will fail to make the headlines, but it is all about extra jobs. Milton Keynes has a diversified economy: we are very dependent on small businesses, which make up about 65 per cent. of our economy. Those small businesses are succeeding and taking on new employees, although I concede that times are difficult.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that unemployment in Milton Keynes has trebled in the past two years?
  Mr. Legg: As I said earlier, Milton Keynes has had a difficult time. I could have concentrated on the fact that unemployment in Milton Keynes has risen from 3 to 8 per cent. over the past two years; I could have detailed the job losses there. Instead, I recognised that Britain is now coming out of recession. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of recession. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will be interested to learn that unemployment in Milton Keynes has now flattened out, settling at 8 per cent. We are creating new jobs, and Milton Keynes—like the rest of Britain—will go forward under the Conservatives.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: As hon. Members will expect, I shall not follow the line of route initiated by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). Unlike Conservative Members, Opposition Members fully
  752
  support the minimum wage policy, and we are proud to have fought the last election on that basis; when the opportunity arises, we will introduce the minimum wage in the interest of justice and fairness. Sadly, the motion sums up all that the Opposition consider relevant about the current level of unemployment. At least we believe that it offers a glimmer of hope to the millions of people who are unemployed.
  Having sat through the debate since 3.30 pm, I have been particularly struck by the staggering complacency of Conservative Members. They have not accepted an iota of the Opposition's argument that we face a national crisis in manufacturing employment, and that action should be taken at a national level, with the Government accepting responsibility for generating investment, wealth and creating jobs. That abdication of responsibility is one of the strangest aspects of the debate.
  It may have escaped the notice of Conservative Members that, since the Prime Minister took office about two years ago, 1·1 million people have lost their jobs. Every day since then, 2,500 people have become unemployed. I am not here to doom-monger—I want to talk positively—but when 29 people are chasing every job vacancy, Government action is clearly needed.
  What do we get from the Government? We have had a Gracious Speech and an autumn statement, which addressed the wrong issues; we have rail privatisation and coal privatisation; we have the abolition of the basic floor provided by wages councils; we have reductions in Government spending; we have the opting out of schools; we have tinkering with investment on the edges of the economy. We do not have a Government who are committed to the central agenda of creating employment and improving the lot of the millions—both Labour and Conservative voters—who want a better Britain to be provided through job creation.
  I sometimes think that the Government are not living in the real world. I do not claim that my constituency is the worst affected in Wales or in the United Kingdom. Indeed, there are many good things in my constituency, and I would be the last person to run down Delyn. It has many factories which are creating wealth, employment and jobs. However, it would be foolish of me to ignore the fact that much has gone wrong in my constituency, which needs support from and action by the Government to promote employment.
  In October there were 5,971 unemployed men and 1,641 unemployed women in the Shotton, Flint and Rhyl travel-to-work area which encompasses my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Those figures represent a 9 per cent. unemployment rate in my constituency and a rate of 10·5 per cent. in Clwyd. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside is as concerned as I am about the level of unemployment in that travel-to-work area. I shall shortly discuss some of our proposals to help reduce those figures.
  Mr. Barry Jones: My constituency shares boundaries with that of my hon. Friend. Today we heard that Northwest Airlines said that it would abandon its order for 74 airbus aircraft. Like me, my hon. Friend might want to know the consequences of the loss of that order for the British aerospace industry and for the 4,000 people employed at the Broughton works in my constituency where the airbus wings are made. Does my

  753
  hon. Friend agree that the Government should aim to put at the top of their agenda measures to help British manufacturing industry?
  Mr. Hanson: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I recently visited the aerospace works in his constituency because many of the workers are my constituents. They are crying out for an aerospace strategy to help create jobs and employment. Today's news that the airbus order might be cancelled is of particular concern to my part of north-east Wales.
  In the Delyn borough council area there are 2,283 people out of work. In some of the wards in my constituency, 40 per cent. of males are unemployed. This is the 30th consecutive month in which unemployment has risen in Delyn constituency, where the total number of unemployed is 2,806. Although that is not the greatest number in Wales, it means that 2,806 people want to work and deserve the opportunity to do so. Government support could create valuable jobs.
  In my constituency only 416 job vacancies are currently registered and in Flint—the largest town in the borough of Delyn—only 45 vacancies are registered with the jobcentre. With such a level of unemployment and lack of vacancies, we need solid action by the Government.
  I draw again to Ministers' attention a fact that has been mentioned by many of my colleagues. It costs £9,000 to keep a person unemployed. That means that taxpayers in Delyn are spending £25 million this year on wasteful unemployment when we could undertake many projects to create wealth and jobs and to build a better society. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who is no longer present, said that public money does not create wealth, but many employers and business people in my constituency would welcome portions of that £25 million being spent in the private sector to provide the services that we need and to retain private sector jobs.
  On Friday I attended a business lunch in Mold in my constituency with business men, none of whom, I suspect, voted for me in the general election but all of whom stated categorically that the Government were off the track and were not providing the necessary resources for the private sector through public investment. Most of all, they wanted public sector investment to help create private sector jobs. What do my constituents have to look forward to? Unfortunately, the answer, as for the rest of the United Kingdom, is, "Not a great deal".
  Although the issue of travel-to-work areas is not part of the Minister's responsibility, I wish to raise it now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside is aware, the Flint, Shotton and Rhyl travel-to-work area, which has been in operation since 1984, is in the Government's proposed review. Deeside fears that the assisted area status, the accompanying Objective 2 status and the special development area status, which were put in place because of massive job losses in the steel and textile industries, will be lost when the review is completed.
  There are still some of the 40 per cent. black spots in my constituency and along the coast which existed when the original Objective 2 status area was agreed. We also face the prospect of further job losses through colliery closures, which should add to the urgency with which the Government should tell north-east Wales that they believe. that its assisted area status should be maintained. The
  754
  Minister is shaking his head. Does he disagree with that point, is he not especially interested, or is he doing his crossword? I and many colleagues believe that assisted area status is valuable to our community and, if it is not maintained after the review, we shall return to the previous level of unemployment. At the moment, the enterprise zone and assisted area status is due to be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside and I wish it to be continued.
  It is absolutely amazing that the Government can consider such a step, especially as my constituency faces the closure of the Point of Ayr colliery in the north of my constituency. When discussing unemployment, we must mention the Government's responsibility to create jobs, as well as that of the private sector.
  The Point of Ayr pit is perfectly viable. It sells 80 per cent. of its coal to a power station down the road and the other 20 per cent. to businesses on the Wirral in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales. It has a market for its coal, and hon. Members may wish to refer to early-day motion 970 which mentions the world-beating coal produced in that pit. However, we now face the potential loss of 527 direct jobs and a total of 1,047 jobs there because of Government policy. Closure is proposed despite recent investment in the pit and despite the fact that it has the ability to produce coal at competitive prices. It is an absolute scandal.
  The colliery and its on-site contractors provide an immense resource for a local skill base. What surer way is there to continue unemployment and the downward cycle than to remove from the local economy a major skill base from my constituency and other affected areas?
  The Secretary of State for Employment referred to the potential cost of retraining redundant miners. In Wales that cost is estimated at £2·6 million. That includes the retraining of miners who might lose their jobs at the Point of Ayr colliery. Would not it be better if that money were invested in the colliery to ensure its productivity and if we had a proper energy policy which ensured that coal had a valuable role?
  Delyn borough council recently did some excellent work on estimating the cost of replacing the 1,000 jobs that would be lost if the Point of Ayr colliery were closed, although I hope that it will not come to that. The council estimated that about £150 million of taxpayers' money at a local level would be needed to replace those jobs. Do not hon. Members accept that it would be better to find positive ways in which the Government can spend the £150 million and to put jobs on the agenda instead of using those resources to respond to a closure which need not occur? Valuable resources have been invested in the pit in the past few years.
  I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) will mention south Wales if the opportunity arises. Bearing in mind all the problems facing my constituency and those of my colleagues, surely the Government could have tabled a better amendment than the waffle that they have produced. The Government are complacent about what is happening. Perhaps Ministers and Conservative hon. Members are not aware of what is happening outside the House. Many people who are natural Conservative supporters are suffering tremendously in the recession. They are looking to the House for leadership and for quality jobs.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that people from all walks of life are suffering in the current recession. Does he agree that it is a Europe-wide problem and that the results of unemployment in this country are by no means the worst in Europe? The hon. Gentleman should consider the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). In Spain, which has a minimum wage policy, the unemployment level for young people is 33·7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will recall that figure. In a European context, what are your proposals for dealing with the problem——
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should address me. His intervention has now gone on long enough.
  Mr. Heald: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Hanson: I find it interesting that a Conservative Member asks an Opposition Member about Government policies and about what our position in Europe should be when Britain has the presidency of the European Community and when the Prime Minister has the opportunity to feed in policies. Perhaps the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) would care to speak to the Prime Minister and to ask him what his policies for Europe are. We shall ask that because we do not appear to be getting Government support or co-ordination on those points. We can discuss the minimum wage at another time. I regard the minimum wage as vital to our community and especially to Wales, which is the lowest-paid region in the United Kingdom.
  Conservative Members have mentioned the depressing side of our arguments and the fact that we have concentrated on job losses. I want to be positive about our community. As I have said, Delyn has much to offer prospective employers, as does north Wales and especially north-east Wales. I should like to hear support from Conservative Members for our positive proposals for job creation. There is much that we need to do. I could cite a number of examples in my own constituency of things that could be done to create employment in Wales and elsewhere.
  Let us consider transport. As I said, it would cost £150 million to replace the jobs that may be lost at Point of Ayr colliery. It would cost £40 million of Government money to improve the Crewe-Holyhead rail link. My hon. Friends from all parts of the United Kingdom could mention projects that would create employment, would help the infrastructure and would bring jobs and support, especially to north Wales. The third Dee crossing is a major road infrastructure project which is close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. It would create jobs, it would put construction workers back to work, it would get people off the dole and it would improve the infrastructure of north Wales. It is a valuable capital project.
  The retention of Objective 2 area status for north Wales, including the Shotton, Rhyl and Flint travel-to-work area, is now entirely in the hands of the Government and of Conservative Members. The retention of that status would ensure, as it would in other parts of the United Kingdom, the retention of support to areas that have been hard hit since 1979 when the Government took office.
  On energy policy, I make no apology for repeating the fact that my community is in dire need because the
  756
  Government may close the Point of Ayr colliery. Many people's jobs depend on that colliery. It would be simple for the Government to make a statement and to consider a positive energy policy to help to reduce the burdens on the community.
  An aerospace strategy has been mentioned, as has a tourism strategy which would support the parts of my constituency that depend on tourism. We need a housing strategy to put the many building workers in my constituency back to work and to help to meet the needs of the 2,650 people who are currently homeless in Delyn. All of those are positive policies that the Government could propose to help to create employment in the community. However, the Government choose not to do so which is a scar on their reputation and on Conservative Members who do not seek to invest in jobs in our community.
  Our motion sums up our concern for jobs and for employment. The one message that I shall take back to my constituency at the weekend is the frightening level of complacency that Conservative Members who have spoken tonight have shown about our economy and about the level of jobs in our communities. Above all places in the United Kingdom, the House should say to people in our communities, "We know why you are suffering, we know how you are suffering, and we have a strategy to build our way to recovery." Conservative Members have shown that they have no strategy and no plans for recovery. That is why the Government will fail in clue course.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: One of the disappointing aspects of the debate has been the rather poor attendance of hon. Members of all parties. The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) should also take the message to his constituents that few of his hon. Friends bothered to turn up to listen to their own debate on unemployment. That is an indictment of the Labour party.
  I can well understand that Labour Members did not turn up because they did not want to listen to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). That is fully understandable. However, it is a shame that we do not see more Labour Members present for such a debate.
  The hon. Member for Delyn asked about the Government's European policy. One thing I know about Labour's policy on Europe is that it seeks to increase the money provided through the social fund and through the cohesion fund, which the Maastricht treaty seeks to introduce. The reality is that any extra funds that go into the two funds will find their way to the poorer, southern countries of the European Community rather than to the regions of this country. Labour Members should be slightly cautious about calling for more funds in those areas.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a disappointing and poor speech. On three or four occasions, he responded to interventions by saying that we should have to wait until later in his speech and that he was not able to deal with interventions at that stage. He was rather insulting to the unemployed when he suggested that they would all commit crimes because they were unemployed. That comment was unfortunate.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras talked about right-wing, fascist extremists. The reality is that

  757
  there is a problem with right-wing, fascist extremists in Europe. They are not a problem in this country. They are a problem in Germany, in Italy and in France, but not in this country.
  The only job creation scheme put forward by the Labour party which has ever worked is the one in Monklands district council where 22 wives, sons and daughters of a small group of Labour councillors have been employed. I ask Opposition Members when they will express sympathy for 51-year-old Tom McFarlane, who was made redundant because he and his wife dared to question the internal procedures of the local Labour party and its corrupt control of the local council. To date, we have heard nothing about that saga from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition. He has been totally silent. It is time that he put that right and it is time that he condemned the practices in Monklands district council.
  Unemployment is a curse on our society: of that there is no doubt. All hon. Members accept that. Unemployment leads to all sorts of desperate difficulties for individuals who have lost their jobs and for their families. The strain that unemployment puts on families sometimes leads to the break-up of those families and sometimes even leads to people losing their homes. Conservative Members care about the real problems that face ordinary people—our constituents who become unemployed.
  It is misleading to suggest that there is an easy answer to the difficulty. The quack solutions that we have heard from the Labour party today demonstrate why it was that the British people did not entrust Labour with government last April. The propositions put forward by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras were glib and facile on the whole, and demonstrated, once again, that the Labour party is wedded to state intervention as its preferred option. We heard that the Government must take action on jobs. The hon. Member for Delyn said that we need an industrial policy and a package of measures. However, Opposition Members never tell us how those measures are to be paid for.
  So long as Labour advocates a national minimum wage and pushes for Britain to sign the European social chapter, Labour does not deserve to be taken seriously in respect of unemployment. Those two proposals would cost hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens their jobs.
  The scourge of unemployment will be tackled properly only when the process of wealth creation is set solidly on track. The fundamentals are what counts. For a year until golden Wednesday on 16 September, interest rates in this country were too high. They were at a level inappropriate to Britain's domestic requirements. We all know that that stemmed directly from Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism—a policy that was supported wholeheartedly by the Labour party. However, now that the Government have been able to reduce interest rates by three points to 7 per cent., British exporters are more able to sell their products overseas and a recovery will take place. The fundamental requirements for recovery are now in place.
  I know that Ministers are wary of trumpeting recovery for fear of heralding a false storm once more. However, as a humble Back Bencher and a humble Parliamentary
  758
  Private Secretary, I am prepared to stick my neck out and say that I believe that a good recovery will take place in 1993. I believe that it might be considerably stronger than the 1 per cent. forecast by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the autumn statement.
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that the recovery may already have started—at least in the north of England where people are less highly geared. Yorkshire folk are very sensible and canny and they did not borrow up to their eyeballs in the heady days of the 1980s. As they have fewer borrowing commitments, they will be able to take advantage of the lower mortgage repayments and of the favourable economic conditions that now exist.
  I spoke recently to a medium-sized manufacturer based in Halifax who does a great deal of exporting. He told me that his order book has exploded since the devaluation of the pound. He has taken on a greatly increased number of orders and that is good news. He is also looking to employ people.
  Only a week ago, I spoke to a stockbroker based in Huddersfield. He told me that he saw green shoots of recovery all over Yorkshire. I do not want to get carried away, but there are some encouraging signs. Some companies' order books are increasing and there is more confidence about the future.
  I spoke to a friend of mine who sells furniture. He told me that his sales have increased markedly in Yorkshire and, funnily enough, particularly in the north-east of England. That anecdotal evidence, allied to figures showing the recent growth in the money supply and in retail sales, provides encouraging signs for the future.
  Putting that evidence to one side, my real cause for optimism is that we now have in place the economic and monetary policies conducive to recovery. I believe that that recovery will take place. Recovery in the wealth—creating sectors will bring in its wake the new jobs that we all so desperately want to see. That will not come about through the quack solutions of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who advocates state intervention here and state spending there.
  Between 1985 and 1990, unemployment fell by more than 1 million because of the new jobs being created in the real industrial world. We created the right economic conditions of low inflation, minimum regulation, moderate personal and corporate taxation, less of the nation's wealth being swallowed up by the state and a climate for enterprise. Those are the conditions that we will have to recreate—and which I believe that we are creating—for the 1990s. There are no facile, quack solutions.
  The Labour party does not understand industry. Labour Members advocate that politicians should have a hands-on approach to industry and that politicians should have an industrial policy. However, the reality is that hardly any Labour Members have ever worked in industry. It is fair to point out that practically none of the spokesmen in the shadow Employment, Treasury or Trade and Industry teams have ever worked in industry.
  I was interested to note from his biographical details that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras worked at the headquarters of the Central Electricity Generating Board for 10 years. That was certainly a nationalised industry in those days, but I am not sure what his job entailed. I suppose that it was at least close to industry so I must not denigrate it.

  759
  The fact that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras can refer to business men in this country as
  "stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum"
  demonstrates his contempt for people who run businesses in this country.
  Ms. Quin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Riddick: The hon. Lady is now going to try to defend the indefensible.
  Ms. Quin: Far from defending the indefensible, I would like to repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He made it clear that he was referring to employers who pay poverty wages.
  Mr. Riddick: Whatever the circumstances, one should not refer to business men as
  "stinking, lousy, thieving, incompetent scum".
  One simply does not do that, particularly if one claims to hold a responsible position within the shadow Cabinet as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does. The comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras demonstrate his contempt for industry and for business in general. We hear that kind of approach from the Opposition far too often.
  The negative knocking of industry by the Labour party achieves nothing and it certainly does not help to create a climate of confidence. We all know that confidence is terribly important. Out there in the real world confidence is fragile. The Labour party could help by being less negative and more positive about opportunities and about the future.
  When companies make announcements about redundancies, that is also bad for confidence. It certainly does not help to restore confidence. Last week, the Post Office announced 16,500 job losses. When I heard that, I thought, "My God, that's appalling. That will be disastrous for confidence." However, when I read the small print in the newspapers the next day, I realised that the jobs were to be lost through natural wastage over five years.
  The fact that those jobs are to be lost is regrettable. However, they are being lost not so much because of the recession, but because of improved technology which is being introduced in the Post Office. An interesting article by Anatole Kaletsky appeared in The Times on Monday. He pointed out that too many companies are making big redundancy announcements when they have no intention of losing so many people. He reported that there is a cult of management machismo. If that is the case, it is most unfortunate. Industrialists should stop making such announcements unless absolutely necessary.
  Mr. Kaletsky pointed out that
  "redundancy costs can often be reported as an 'extraordinary item' in a company's accounts and do not therefore affect the earnings per share from continuing operations".
  I understand that the practice will cease in the middle of next year—and about time, too.
  The Government's economic policy is now on the right tracks. Interest rates have come down and inflation is low. The autumn statement responded to the representations of industry, contrary to many of the statements made from the Opposition Benches. Recovery is in sight arid with recovery will come renewed job opportunities. The small
  760
  businesses will create the jobs of the future. The big companies are shedding jobs because of improved technology that they are introducing into their factories.
  My old company, Coca Cola and Schweppes Beverages, is able to produce as many cans of pop by employing 200 people in its new factory in Wakefield as it took 1,800 people to produce only a few years ago. I do not particularly welcome that; it is simply a fact of life. It demonstrates the difficulty of creating new jobs in the United Kingdom. The small businesses will create new jobs, so we must create the right economic conditions in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what the Government are doing. The Labour party's quack solutions involve an extension of state intervention and power, which represents the policies of the past. Private enterprise competing with a free market will create the jobs of the future.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: I have been fortunate to listen to most of the speeches in the debate. Unlike the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), I have not heard any of my right hon. and hon. Friends knock British industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not knock British industry because I am a strong and passionate supporter of industry, especially the engineering industry.
  I should like to talk about the current level of unemployment in my constituency and its effect on the fabric of life in my community. I should also like to talk more widely about the current difficulties in British manufacturing industry.
  Before doing so, I express to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) the immense feeling and regret in my constituency about the closure of Cammell Laird at Merseyside. Cammell Laird is a great shipyard. It has a great and strong history. The people in my constituency feel real regret that it has been announced that the yard will close. I place the responsibility for that closure not on the management of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited but on the policies being pursued by the Government. Since 1979 the Government have consistently failed to support the British shipbuilding industry.
  Today there was a lobby of Parliament from people in my constituency. It is unusual for my constituents to lobby Parliament, because my constituency must be one of the most difficult to get to and from. However, many of my constituents made the effort to come to Parliament to meet hon. Members and Ministers and to remind them of what has been happening in one of the great centres of the British engineering industry.
  Since 1990 and the publication of "Options for Change", 8,500 redundancies have been declared in my constituency. More redundancies have been declared in Barrow and Furness than in any other British constituency. Those redundancies are a devastating blow to my constituency. About 4,500 people are registered as unemployed, although the true extent of unemployment in the constituency is substantially higher. I have just learnt that 5,500 of my constituents claim sickness benefit, the vast number of whom will be unemployed. If the number of my constituents claiming sickness benefit is added to the

  761
  number claiming unemployment benefit, the real level of unemployment in my constituency is probably nearer 20 per cent. than the official figure of 10 per cent.
  My particular worry is the effect that the redundancies and job losses have had on young people. Since 1990, 1,000 engineering apprentices have disappeared from my constituency. Every year the VSEL shipyard recruited about 300 young people aged 16 years. Most of them were boys, but many were young women. That recruitment of apprentice trainees has finished. Vickers accounted for a high proportion of the total number of engineering apprentices in the United Kingdom. The loss of the recruitment programme is a serious blow not only to my constituency but to the engineering industry of the United Kingdom and our future as a trading nation. That level of apprentice lay-offs is a devastating blow to my community and the country as a whole.
  Unfortunately, we know that there will be heavy job losses in Barrow in the next two years. The programme of shedding workers and redundancies at Vickers is far from over. The worst expectation is that as many as 4,000 extra redundancies could be made in my constituency in the next two to three years. The combined effect of those redundancies will be that every family in my constituency will have been directly affected by unemployment. Whole families have lost their jobs at the shipyard. Many parents are worried about the employment prospects for their children. Therefore, in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends—and, I suspect, the constituencies of Conservative Members—an entire culture of service to the nation and an entire tradition of skill and work are at risk.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke about the feelings of many Conservative Members about those who are out of work. I was glad to hear him say that, because the impression I gained from listening to the debate is that there is not a great deal of concern among Conservative Members. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reassurance.
  When we talk about unemployment we are not whingeing. We are not knocking British industry or running the country down, as many Conservative Members would like the House to believe. We are simply reminding the Government and Conservative Members of the consequences of their economic policies. For many communities in Britain, those economic policies have been devastating in the past few years.
  The root of the present difficulties in my constituency lies with the Government's failure to support manufacturing industry, especially the engineering industry. The shipbuilding industry has been badly hit by the recession. Indeed, that industry has been in a process of structural decline, certainly since the late 1970s. In response to some of the comments that I have heard tonight, I should point out that Britain's shipbuilding industry and, indeed, the shipbuilding industry of Europe is not a smokestack or old-fashioned industry. It is a high-tech and highly skilled industry.
  The contribution of my constituents to shipbuilding and the quality of engineering in my constituency are second to none in the world. In particular, the engineering work on the Trident programme is without parallel; it is some of the highest-quality work that any British shipyard has ever produced.
  762
  A Conservative Member referred to engineering as a low-tech, metal-bashing industry. That is nonsense. The shipbuilding industry of Britain, especially the shipbuilding facilities in the Devonshire Dock Hall in Barrow, is the finest in Europe—I would argue that it is the finest in the world. Because of the Government's inaction and their pursuit of ideology, there is a serious risk that we shall once again surrender huge tracts of our engineering industry to foreign competition. When the worldwide demand for merchant shipbuilding is set to double in the next 10 years, why are we still pursuing a range of policies that will mean that British shipyards will not be able to compete for that work?
  It is inconceivable that any other European Government will allow such an important industry to be sacrificed on what I can only describe as a rather outdated and pathetic high altar of free market forces. We are pursuing policies to spite ourselves—to cut off our noses—and there is no economic, political or social logic in such policies.
  Other shipbuilding industries in Europe are taking advantage of an increase in orders for merchant shipbuilding. I ask the Government to recognise the contribution that our marine engineering industry can play in revitalising our manufacturing base. As a maritime nation with an immensely proud history and tradition, it is extraordinary that the United Kingdom does not have a policy for its marine engineering industry. How have we ended up in such an extraordinary and ludicrous position?
  I am not here simply to highlight the problems in my constituency, although I believe that those problems are very serious. I want to offer the Government some positive advice and guidance about what they should do to tackle the growing unemployment in my constituency and other shipbuilding communities in Britain. The Government need to reconsider their position on the seventh EC directive on aid to the European shipbuilding industry. In particular, they need to reconsider their view that the naval shipyards of Britain should not qualify, and will never qualify, for intervention funding.
  Looking back at the past 10 to 12 years, it might have been logical in the 1980s for the Government to take that view, because the order books of our naval yards were buoyant and the cold war was still in full force. Many of the naval shipyards of Britain were able to look forward to decades or more of secure employment. That was certainly true of the VSEL shipyard in Barrow.
  We looked forward to building a large number of hunter-killer submarines and a full complement of 2400-class Upholder boats. All that finished when the Secretary of State for Defence announced substantial cuts in the submarine procurement programme. At a stroke, my constituency lost £3 billion worth of envisaged submarine procurement. The same is true to a smaller extent of other yards in Britain. The naval construction programme was substantially pruned.
  It is not possible for constituencies such as mine, which have been historically dependent on work from the Ministry of Defence, suddenly to change on their own. The naval yards that had looked forward to secure order books found themselves with none. They found themselves in much the same position as many of the merchant yards in the 1970s and early 1980s.
  British warship yards have experienced a substantial and material change of circumstances. That declining volume of work and expected work from the Ministry of

  763
  Defence should compel the Government to reconsider their view of the seventh directive and argue the case at European level for intervention funding to help our warship yards.
  Our warship yards are just about all that we have left of a once mighty industry. For example, the industry once produced more than half of all the ships built on the planet. We are now reduced to a tiny fragment of that. Given the range of skills and the level of investment in some of our yards, it would be criminal for the Government not to continue to support the British shipbuilding industry by seeking amendments to the seventh directive. They should seek to develop an eighth directive that will enable the warship yards to qualify for merchant shipbuilding work. It is essential that the Government do that.
  It is imperative that my constituency attracts assisted area status and development area status. I have noticed—I am sure that other hon. Members have also noticed—that the budget for the Department of Trade and Industry for the next three years is set to fall. In my constituency we have invested a great deal of hope in attracting assisted area status. But where is the beef? Where will the cash come from to give my constituents and those of other hon. Members the hope and confidence that they want for the future? The Department of Trade and Industry should be one of the great Departments of state. It should lead and fuel the engine of British engineering industry. Yet it is set to cut the support that it provides. That is an alarming development.
  We have heard a great deal during the debate about training. It is important to bear it in mind that most of the training and enterprise councils are gearing themselves up for further cuts next year. Unlike the hon. Member for Colne Valley, I see little empirical evidence of recovery in the British economy. He may give anecdotal evidence that unemployment is levelling off in his constituency. I am delighted to hear that, for the sake of his constituents, but there is no sign that unemployment is levelling off in my constituency. We expect unemployment to double in the next two years. That is a horrifying prospect for my constituents.
  The Government say that a commitment to high-quality training underlies their supposed concern about unemployment. We do not see that in my constituency. Cumbria TEC faces substantial cuts in its training budget for next year, at a time when we know that unemployment is set to rise substantially in my constituency.
  Plenty of issues give rise to anxiety and it is appropriate for hon. Members to express that anxiety, as I have done, without being accused of whingeing or of knocking British industry. I am not knocking British industry. Industry has played an historic role in my constituency not only in defending the country—we are proud of that—but by being a resource which is of use to the nation. We have the skills, the engineering excellence and the base.
  Opposition Members do not knock British industry. We support it. We wish sometimes that the Government would do the same. Like many other shipbuilding communities, my constituents have given real service to Britain in both war and peace. They are not being properly rewarded. Indeed, they are not being rewarded at all.
  The Government should display the imagination and provide the support that other nations give to their
  764
  shipbuilding industries. That would have a substantial beneficial effect on unemployment in all the shipbuilding communities of Britain.
  Taking a wider view, Opposition Members see with alarm what is happening to the British economy. Many statistics have been traded about the state of the British economy. However, it is appropriate to examine some of the statistics that have not been mentioned so far tonight. Unemployment stands at almost 3 million. It has risen for 29 consecutive months—a cumulative rise of more than 1·2 million. Vacancies have fallen to 95,000—the lowest level since 1981. We have the third highest level of unemployment in the European Community.
  Manufacturing industry is dear to my heart and essential to the well-being and prosperity of my constituents. Manufacturing investment was 5 per cent. lower in the first six months of 1992 than in the same period in 1991. It fell by 16·5 per cent. between 1989 and 1991 and is now lower than in 1979. Investment in the whole economy fell by 2·5 per cent. between the first and second quarters of 1992, having fallen by 10 per cent. in 1991. Those are pretty grim statistics.
  Let us examine our gross domestic product compared with that of other countries in the European Community. From 1990 to the present day, the United Kingdom GDP has fallen by 2·5 per cent., while that of Germany has grown by 5·3 per cent., that of France has grown by 6·1 per cent. and the EC average is a growth of 4·5 per cent. In the same period, United Kingdom manufacturing output, which is of direct interest to my constituents, has fallen by 5·25 per cent. while that of Germany has risen by almost 8 per cent., that of France has risen by 5·5 per cent. and that of Spain has risen by 7 per cent. Those are the real indicators of the Government's achievements in managing the British economy. It is a pathetic and embarrassing record.
  Ministers continue to believe that government is part of the problem. That is not true; government can be part of the solution. It is depressing to hear Conservative Members continue to run down and neglect the role of the Government in fuelling activity in the economy. We need the right balance between macroeconomic policies and supply-side measures to produce low-inflationary growth in the economy. There is no sign that Ministers or Conservative Members are thinking along those lines. In that case, unemployment will continue to rise.
  There will be no hope for those who are unemployed until the Government change course and recognise that unemployment is an injustice which must be put right. That is why I shall support the motion in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: In my constituency we share many of the problems of unemployment described by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). It may seem odd to say that north Hertfordshire and Barrow and Furness have anything in common, but we have always relied on the defence industry for employment. We have been hit hard by the cuts in defence spending in the past two years. Unemployment has increased by 143 per cent. in that period.

  765
  I accept that unemployment has caused distress to the families of my constituents. It causes great anxiety and often it is a tragedy for them. I have met Many of them. Conservative Members understand the anxiety and distress that people feel in those circumstances. However, the point that Conservative Members make is not that the Opposition criticise the Government in a shallow way; our point is that Opposition Members fail to consider the full background to the problem. It is wrong to view a policy for full employment as a realistic aim, in the short term at any rate, when across Europe 12 million people are registered unemployed. It is said that we need 2·5 per cent. growth merely to stand still.
  The background of high unemployment in Europe has not been addressed in the speeches that we have heard today. When my learned Friend—I mean my hon. Friend; old habits die hard—the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) gave the statistics on youth unemployment it was noticeable that there was no answer to the point that Spain has 33·7 per cent., France has 22·1 per cent., Ireland has 28 per cent. and Italy has 29 per cent. youth unemployment. Those countries have minimum wage policies but seem unable to develop successful policies to deal with youth unemployment. In this country, youth unemployment is well below the average in the rest of the European Community. It would be wrong to consider that issue without taking into account the background of unemployment and the task that Europe faces in trying to deal with it.
  When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) attacked British companies, saying that they were not fit to be in the Group of Seven and were not among the best, I felt that it was a complete misdescription of British industry. We have 27 of the top 50 companies and six out of the top 10 big companies in Europe. There are successes, which Opposition Members are simply ignoring.
  In north Hertfordshire the rate of increase in unemployment has levelled off and has fallen in recent months because of local companies' response to the problems. Our largest employer, Johnson Matthey plc, based in Royston—a precious metals business and manufacturer of auto catalysts—has announced improved results for the first six months of 1992 because it has excellent products, high levels of efficiency and has invested heavily in the products that it manufactures. It has done a good deal of research and development with considerable assistance from Government funds. As a result, that great company has been able to regenerate at one end of my constituency.
  At the other end of my constituency, a large number of people work at the Vauxhall motors plant at Luton. Sales of cars have improved in recent months, which has been good for employment in the constituency. Many smaller companies have entered the BS5750 quality management improvement scheme and seem to have had successes resulting from that. Many small companies have made use of available Department of Trade and Industry schemes, road shows and local advisers to improve their export performance. They found that the British Overseas Trade Board's new approach of trying to identify markets for British goods has been a success.
  766
  Our chambers of commerce are trying to spread best practice throughout the constituency. New business opportunities for companies have resulted from the inter-trade fairs that have been arranged. The Letchworth Business Club must be an example to the country—500 companies take part in its activities to improve quality, to export more and to try to improve the local position.
  The training and enterprise council in Hertfordshire has had to face a large blow because of defence industry cuts. It has set up a task force for Hertfordshire and co-ordinated efforts to improve inward investment, training and the regeneration of local business, to some effect. It also pioneered training credits and customised training schemes. That is a model of what should be happening throughout the country.
  From the evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment, it is noticeable that training and enterprise councils provide a good focus for regeneration in areas where jobs have been lost. Some union leaders, such as Bill Jordan, were noticeably enthusiastic about the ways in which TECs could be used, while others were not. It would be a good thing if hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed that TECs are the way in which we are going to deliver training and stimulate enterprise and if we all put our support behind them.
  The submission on pit closures by the north Nottinghamshire TEC to the Secretary of State was interesting. Against a difficult background, it has been able to persuade 500 local companies to become members of its scheme, and it got about 40 new corporate members every month. Perhaps the Manufacturing Science Finance union was able to reach a no-strike agreement with the Japanese company Toray Textiles Europe in that area because it has a good training and enterprise council and because the local unions are getting the message. The attitude of Roger Lyons, the new general secretary of the MSF, is in stark contrast to that of his predecessor, Ken Gill. Mr. Lyons comments on the new agreement are worth quoting—
  "Day 1 of MSF was September 1 1992. I'm not going to be held responsible for statements or comments made personally by my predecessor."
  The deal marks a watershed for the MSF by taking a predominantly white-collar union into blue-collar representation. The Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union was so delighted at the change of attitude that Paul Gallagher said:
  "I'm surprised but delighted that MSF have stopped seeing inward investment as alien."
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that north Nottinghamshire workers are pragmatic and hard working? The record of Nottinghamshire miners, and of miners throughout the country, speaks for itself—during the past five years there has been a 150 per cent. increase in productivity. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the north Nottingham TEC and some of the things that it does. Surely one needs to invest in infrastructure to bring new jobs, investment and prosperity to north Nottinghamshire. To invest—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a long intervention.
  Mr. Heald: I understand the concern of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Obviously it is important that an area such as north Nottinghamshire should be able to regenerate the jobs that have been lost and those which may be lost with pit closures—we do not know at this stage. To do so, a range of measures will need

  767
  to be taken in the locality. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Lord Walker has the job of considering a range of measures that may be necessary to regenerate the local economy in areas where pits are closed.
  In an area like Mansfield, which I understand is some distance from main road and rail links, it may be necessary to consider what major investments will be needed. Alternatively, workers in Mansfield might be able to move nearer to road and rail links to obtain work. The important thing is that TECs can play a pivotal role in regenerating areas where there are substantial job losses and that has been proved in Hertfordshire. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members will put their full weight behind the TECs and that they and the trade unions will not make the sort of ill-conceived criticisms that they have made in the past.
  Mr. Alan Milburn rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ms. Angela Eagle.
  Ms. Eagle rose——
  Mr. Heald: I had not finished my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was giving way to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who wished to intervene.
  Mr. Milburn: I wish to defend the honour of Roger Lyons, who as my general secretary will be delighted by the hon. Member's support. Would he care to comment on the fact that there was a cross-party argument not so much on the role of TECs but on the resources being made available to them? Is it not a fact that this year a near majority of TECs have had their funding cut compared with last year and that they have had to cut about 500,000 employment training weeks from their budgets as a result of the Department of Employment cuts in funding?
  Mr. Heald: The Department of Employment has had a real-terms increase in its budget for next year, and I understand that a further £118 million will be available.
  As I was saying, the trends in north Hertfordshire and in areas where the TECs are giving a lead are especially important. In addition, the initiatives of the Department of Trade and Industry in support of our exporters are about to be expanded, and that is to be welcomed.
  In addition to all of that, we are, under Conservative rule, cutting down on bureaucracy. About 24,000 Government forms have already been scrapped and steps are being taken to try to improve the VAT regulations. The measure introduced recently to allow small companies to pay VAT on receipts rather than invoices is working well and, for example, Hitchin chamber of commerce has described it as a successful step. We want other measures to reduce the dominance of large trading companies over their smaller counterparts, and the recent Green Paper on that subject is to be welcomed.
  It is interesting, when examining the role of trade unions with single union agreements and inward investment—some unions have supported the concept, while others have not—to note that, in its evidence to the Select Committee on Employment, the TUC praised the efforts of trade unions and the valleys programme in helping to attract inward investment. That conflicts with what some Labour Members have said about the programme being a failure. Indeed, the TUC said:
  "It is through government, employers and trade unions working in partnership in this way within our communities that real progress will be achieved."
  768
  Britain has the lowest interest rates in Europe, a competitive exchange rate, low taxes and an excellent work force with good industrial relations. That is a winning ticket with which Britain can go forward and succeed. If we add the measures taken in the autumn statement to revive the housing market, improve business investment, reduce car tax and help export credits, we are better placed than the rest of Europe to face up to the problem of unemployment. That is why I shall support the Government amendment.
  8.32 pm
  Ms. Angela Eagle: I might describe my attempt to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) as the shortest contribution I have ever made in the Chamber.
  I wish to speak generally about the Conservatives' record on unemployment, going back initially to 1979 and then examining their policies that have led to high rates of unemployment. I reinforce some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) for his remarks about Cammell Laird.
  One of the main features of post-1979 Conservative Governments has been the high, increasing and persistent rates of unemployment resulting directly from their policies. Much has been said today about recession in the rest of Europe and throughout the world. Conservative Members have failed to point out that we in Britain are into our second recession. We went into recession earlier and have remained there longer. Indeed, we are now in an even more persistent recession, the worst Britain has experienced for 60 years. So while there may now be world recession problems, that was not the case when the Conservatives, with their odd policies and peculiar ideological obsessions, plunged us into recession in 1980–81.
  Mr. Heald: Britain is now poised to come out of recession—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—while countries such as Germany are predicted to have unemployment levels rising to about 6 million within two years.
  Ms. Eagle: Time will tell whether we are about to come out of recession and whether the hon. Gentleman's predictions will materialise. After all, we have been on the starting blocks, the green shoots showing, for at least 18 months, yet we are still bumping along the bottom.
  It is important in a debate about unemployment to consider the Conservative record going back over the years rather than to dwell only on the present state of affairs, especially as that record includes persistent and high rates of unemployment, reaching levels that nobody thought possible prior to 1979. It was not thought at that time that such unemployment levels could be politically sustainable in a democracy. The Government have presented the situation today as a sort of natural phenomenon that descended on Britain in the last 14 years. They claim that there was little, if anything, they could have done about it.
  There are two clear effects of the dogma adopted by the Conservatives in the years immediately following 1979. Still showing through their policies is the ideological belief that it is no role of Government to do anything to deal with demand in the economy. They seem to think that they

  769
  need only remove government from as many areas of life as possible and all will come right because market forces will provide.
  The second clear effect is the appalling incompetence demonstrated by the first Tory Government in 1979, when they launched themselves on their frenzied monetarist phase, which destroyed one third of the then British manufacturing base. We have not yet recovered from that.
  We must return to those early years of Conservative government to recall how bad the situation was. Their monetarist dogma has been discredited by its very practice. It has been shown to be absolute nonsense. Not only has it not worked, but it has been damaging to the nation. The House need not take my word for that. Monetarism proved to be a disaster for employment, and we are living with the consequences of it today. I quote from a recently published book—I shall identify the author shortly—on the subject:
  "Thatcherism largely consisted of 19th century individualism dressed up in 20th century clothes. Economic dogma was at its core."
  The author went on to say that Thatcherites adopted a particularly dogmatic form of classical economics and that no other Government had become such fundamentalist devotees of the Friedmanite scriptures. The Conservative party, of all the leading right-wing European democratic parties, had then become
  "far and away the most dogmatic."
  It is clear from today's debate that that dogma still exists. The author continues:
  "The attempt to control the money supply helped to produce an exceptionally large, rapid and enduring rise in unemployment."
  That was not written by a Marxist or trendy lefty polytechnic lecturer. The author was Lord Gilmour in his book "Dancing with Dogma."
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: If monetarism and what the hon. Lady described as Thatcherism was such a disaster in the 1980s, perhaps she will explain why we got an extra 1 million self-employed people and more than an extra 1 million jobs in the economy during that period.
  Ms. Eagle: I had intended to deal with that issue later and to examine the quality as well as the quantity of jobs created. The structure of employment in Britain has changed in the past 14 years, away from secure and skilled jobs to more insecure, low-paid and part-time jobs.
  Apart from the obsession with monetarism in the early 1980s, Conservative ideology believed that the superiority of market forces would provide, so that the Government could sit back and wait for the market to provide perfect solutions to every problem.
  We are now in our second recession. We have lost massive chunks of manufacturing industry, and only 4 million of the 50 million people who live in this country now work in manufacturing. Great swathes of skilled people have been put on the dole and many healthy industries have gone to the wall simply because, as Lord Gilmour said, the Government's reaction to what is happening in the economy has been much more dogmatic than that of the Christian Democrat Governments in Europe, all of whom admit that there is a role for intervention.
  Intervention has a role not only in events in a sector of the economy but also in affecting demand. The level of
  770
  demand in the economy seems to be taken as something that is handed down from Heaven and on which the Government can have no effect. The Secretary of State said that the Government can simply provide supply-side polices to retrain and provide skills so that people can better be matched to jobs. She did not say how the Government could increase demand in the economy to create more jobs.
  I therefore looked at whether the autumn statement contained anything about creating demand. I must admit that it contained a small dash of intervention in the form of construction projects, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes will create employment. But many of them do not start until 1996. I wonder whether that is a clue to the date of the next general election or simply my musing about what might be on the Prime Minister's mind.
  The autumn statement was presented to the House in the aftermath of the most humiliating and expensive economic debacle that we have seen for a long time, when we were forced out of membership of the ERM. We then had the spectacle of a Government in search of an economic policy. The autumn statement is meant to be it. It contains just a little touch of expansion but also a public sector pay freeze. It is not clear to me—it has not been mentioned by Conservative Members—whether the autumn statement's overall effect will be deflationary because of the spending power that it will take out of the economy, and whether that will make unemployment worse. Time will tell.
  The Government have been pursuing their own ideological dogmas and have been content to let unacceptably high unemployment persist. I want to discuss how that affects my local area. It is apposite that I discuss that matter after last week's announcement of the final closure date for the Cammell Laird shipyard, which is to be next July if the Government and Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. are allowed to proceed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness pointed out, he is in a similar position. Birkenhead and Wallasey have been built up around one industry. When that industry is threatened with closure, the results are catastrophic for the surrounding area.
  I applaud and join my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead in his determination to ensure that the yard does not close. We shall do our level best, with the help of the community, agencies and, I hope, the Government to ensure that it has a future as a shipbuilding yard, out of VSEL's control, to maintain skills and jobs in that important area.
  Wallasey and the Wirral were much weakened by the monetarist experiments of the 1980s. Indeed, 15 per cent. of the manufacturing industry in that area disappeared during that period. We now have another turn of the screw, which will ratchet down unemployment even further in an area already weakened by the Government's economic mismanagement. If the yard goes, almost 1,000 direct jobs will go immediately. Up to 6,000 other service jobs will go as an indirect result of the closure. Some 600 local firms that have supplied the yard will be at risk. During its history, Cammell Laird has been notable for always going to local firms for supplies. Consequently, the effect of its closure on the local community will be all the more devastating because of its acceptable and responsible purchasing pattern.
  The local borough council estimates that £30 million of spending power will be taken out of the local economy.

  771
  One in seven people is out of work in the area. The official unemployment figure for Wallasey, where many of the people who work in Cammell Laird live, is almost 14 per cent. In addition, because of the cost of unemployment, retraining and other issues that have been mentioned, it is estimated that the closure will cost the public purse £111 million in the first year. It is economic madness to close the yard and put out of work one of the most skilled work forces in the country, given that the industry is likely to be revived in the world market within a couple of years. We have some of the best shipbuilding facilities in the world. Because it is so mad, the Government will probably decide to let it happen.
  The Wirral area has 19,000 people on the dole before the potential economic holocaust that the closure would unleash. Wallasey has above average unemployment, with 18 per cent. male unemployment, 7 per cent. female unemployment and an overall level of 14 per cent. There would be a 2 per cent. increase immediately if the shipyard went. Moreover, 37 per cent. of that unemployment is long term—people who have been on the dole for more than a year. I meet constituents who have been out of work for most of the decade and have little prospect of a job.
  Another disturbing aspect of unemployment in the area is the large number of youths unemployed. People in their mid to late 20s have never worked since they left school. It is easy to imagine why we have one of the worst drug problems outside Edinburgh and London. It must be connected with the despair and hopelessness that accompany years of unemployment with no prospect of getting out of it. That should concern hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must reintegrate people who feel that they have been forgotten and neglected, that the Government do not care about them and that the political system excludes them. Unless we do, we are simply racking up problems for the future and must deal with the economic and political whirlwind that will come about if we ignore it now.
  When the Government first came to power, the then Prime Minister, on the steps of 10 Downing street, used a quote by St. Francis of Assisi. I remind hon. Members of what she said:
  "Where there is discord may we bring harmony. Where there is error may we bring truth. Where there is doubt may we bring faith. Where there is despair may we bring hope."
  That is none out of four. Unless the Government do something to deal with those serious and persistent issues and social problems caused by the high unemployment that they are creating, that quote will remain the sick joke that it represents to most people who are on the dole or live in fear of it and the problems that it brings.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that the wind-up speeches are to begin at 9.20 pm. There are four hon. Members hoping to catch my eye, and I hope that each speaker will bear that in mind.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Bates: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I can assure Opposition Members that no Conservative Member underestimates the human tragedy of unemployment. I hope that we can have a constructive debate—we all recognise the tragedy that we are discussing and want to find the best way to reduce unemployment. I have no
  772
  doubt that the 5,324 constituents of Langbaurgh who are unemployed are my top priority. We are debating the best ways of getting those people back to work.
  I am interested by the motion, which states that it
  "condemns the Government's Autumn Statement for its total failure to tackle the jobs crisis".
  That does not square with what the Confederation of British Industry, chambers of commerce—including that in my district—the Federation of Small Businesses, and all the small business men to whom I have spoken have said. They think that the autumn statement will be good for business and for jobs.
  What, exactly, is the Labour party condemning? Is it the fact that we are maintaining low inflation—at 3·6 per cent? Is that what you are condemning? Are you condemning our commitment to capital spending, which was heavily cut under the last Labour Government? Is it the provision of the Jubilee line extension at a cost of £1·9 billion? Do you condemn that? Is it the maintenance of the house building——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not condemn anything.
  Mr. Bates: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Does the Labour party condemn the housing spend—the 35 per cent. increase in the Housing Corporation capital resources amounting to £2·3 billion? Does the Labour party condemn the £900 million that will be released by the change in capital rules for local government? Does it condemn the £2·1 billion worth of capital projects or the £95 million to benefit the inner cities? Does it condemn the cut in interest rates to 7 per cent.—the lowest level for 15 years? A I per cent. cut in interest rates saves British business and industry £1 billion. Does it condemn the £7 billion or £8 billion of investment in business?
  Does the Labour party condemn the maintenance of our commitment to uprate benefits for the casualties of the international recession? Does it condemn the increase of unemployment benefit in line with inflation? Does it condemn the increase in child benefit and state pensions in line with inflation? Is that what the motion condemns?
  Does the Labour party condemn the Government policies for their popularity? Popularity has never come easy to the Labour party. We can mention many fine achievements, but the Labour party considers other aspects and condemns them in its motion. Such factors include the abolition of car tax which, it is estimated, will provide demand for an extra 70,000 units next year. The Labour party condemns the increase in capital allowances—40 per cent. for the first year—a policy which has gone down well with small business men. It condemns the £750 million in extra export guarantees introduced in the autumn statement.
  The autumn statement was popular, but was short of one item. When I travel around my constituency and the north-east of England, business men tell me that they are short of confidence. People need confidence to go out shopping and to invest. I believe that confidence is the only ingredient missing from the British economy.
  The Labour party's contribution to today's debate will do nothing to enhance confidence—if anything, it will continue to run down the country. That is nothing new. I have lived in the north-east all my life, and I have lived cheek by jowl with the Labour party and the effects that it

  773
  has had on the north-east, such as unemployment. I know how the Labour party has managed to run down the north-east.
  The Labour party says that the north-east needs Government investment, but it does not mention the £3·5 billion Government spending and investment since 1979. Does the Labour party mention the £216 million already received, or about to be received, from European funding between 1991 and 1993? Does it mention the Northern Development Company or explain how that company has played its part in attracting £2 billion since 1985, creating or safeguarding 35,000 jobs?
  The call from the Opposition is that we should do more. I believe that we have. Let us consider the jobs that the Government have relocated to the north-east of England. Some 1,700 jobs in the Department of Social Security were created at the Longbenton complex in Newcastle, which already employed 7,000. What about the 400 jobs created by the Government's location of the Inland Revenue in the north-east? What about the 250 tax jobs in Sunderland? What about the 350 jobs at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has been moved to the Newcastle business park? What about the licensing branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, which has been located at Billingham in Cleveland, with the creation of 61 jobs? Some 50 jobs were created at the Department for Education when it moved to Darlington in County Durham, bringing the total number of jobs at that site to 800.
  However, we need more jobs. The work of the urban development corporations has been important. The Government sponsored them with £80 million in the current year. They have attracted £500 million worth of private business to the north-east. Is that enough? Apparently, it is not. What about the training and enterprise councils? Teesside TEC, funded by the Government, helped to set up 500 new businesses during the past two years, which is welcome. That shows what the Government are doing to help create jobs and alleviate unemployment in the north-east of England. What about the inward investment that has been attracted to the north-east of England? Clearly, across the water in America and Japan, people have a higher regard for us than have some Labour Members.
  What about inward investment? Nissan UK has invested in a plant in Sunderland, with 3,000 jobs and a further 1,800 jobs planned. The Fujitsu plant represents £600 million worth of investment, creating about 1,500 jobs. Hashimoto Formings, the Japanese car component manufacturer, is investing £10 million in the north-east.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend recall that the former Leader of the Opposition described Japanese investment as "alien jobs"?
  Mr. Bates: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that such comments go down a storm in Sunderland, Washington, Newcastle and Middlesbrough, where so many people depend for their livelihoods on jobs that come from Japan—and we are grateful to receive them. The Japanese certainly appear to have investment confidence in the people of the north-east; it is time Opposition Members showed some of the same confidence.
  774
  We will not sit back and see our region run down by the Opposition. I want to tell the House about Sommer Industry, the French car component manufacturer, which is setting up business in Washington and creating 100 new jobs. Sterling Research Group, of the United States of America, is expanding its pharmaceutical research centre at Alnwick, with 160 jobs. TRW Thompson, a German-based car valve manufacturer, is to create 225 jobs at a new plant in Washington. Lite-On, of Taiwan, is coming to Ashington with 150 jobs. Synpac Chemicals of Taiwan is to take over part of the Glaxo site, creating 200 jobs.
  It is not just overseas manufacturers who have confidence in the north-east, however. We take pride in the work that we do there for these companies, and for companies from this country as well. British Airways has moved to Newcastle business park, with 700 new jobs to be in place by 1994. MTM, the Cleveland-based chemicals group, has invested £100 million in Teesport, creating 600 new jobs. Bioprocessing Limited, of Consett, has invested £2·5 million in a new factory, thereby creating 100 jobs. Glaxo has opened a new £9 million production unit at Barnard Castle; it provides 1,500 people with employment.
  Another engineering firm has set up a new offshore manufacturing unit which will provide 600 people in the north-east with employment. The MetroCentre, with its multi-million pound investment and 3 million sq ft of shopping space, includes jobs for 6,000 permanent employees. Then there is the development of the multi-million pound Doxford international business park at Sunderland—a development which will go ahead over the next five years at a cost of £250 million, generating up to 3,000 jobs. The development of the new Newcastle business park will create another 5,000 jobs. Investment in the park has topped £150 million.
  This is the news from the north-east, the face of the north-east that we want to show, not to the businesses of this country—they know why they come to the north-east by the coach-load—or to the companies of Japan, America, Germany or France—they have confidence in us—but to the Opposition. They could do with some confidence in the north-east. Instead of running us down, they should be selling the benefits of locating there.
  I want to end by coming a little closer to home, to Teesside——
  Mr. Tipping: Is not unemployment in the north-east the highest in this country? What message is going out to the long-term unemployed there? What about the fact that there is no capital investment in the north-east? What about the message of no hope? And what do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues intend to do about it? Absolutely nothing.
  Mr. Bates: That just proves that Opposition Members cannot see a silver lining without spotting a big dark cloud wrapped around it. The hon. Gentleman comes straight out of the Opposition school of management which believes in attracting business by running down the product. The Opposition might aspire to that view, but our international competitors do not buy it. So, while business is coming to the north-east, creating jobs and giving people some hope of a livelihood, it might perhaps be just as well if Opposition Members kept their thoughts to themselves for the moment.

  775
  To return to Teesside, there was a publication by the Evening Gazette there, with the headline
  "The region with a £4 billion smile".
  That was just last month. It was an excellent publication which I commend. There is a £32 million development at Preston Farm; and a £50 million development at Teesdale business park with an £80 million development at Teesside Park and the new Enron power station. There is a £50 million development by MTM and further developments of £16 million at Belasis technology park and of £1·2 billion by Amoco.
  That is the evidence of what British business and international business think about the north-east and about this country. We have the fundamentals in place. The autumn statement was a success and we need to say that, because we have concern and compassion, the best thing we can do is to send out the message that we have confidence in British business and in the north-east and will back it to the hilt.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: The Opposition are condemning not the ingenuity of British people but the Government's handling of the employment situation. Let us be clear about that. In particular, when Conservative Members ask what we condemn let me tell them what I condemn. Jaguar motor cars in Coventry have systematically, over the past two years, started announcing redundancies, with 200 only last week. I condemn the fact that companies like Rolls-Royce and GPT have introduced systematic redundancies and Cadbury is struggling to maintain its labour force at present levels. Lucas is also struggling to maintain its labour force. I also condemn the answer to me last week from the Minister for Industry, when I asked about the output comparisons over the years. He told me that between 1981 and 1992 output has risen by only 0·05 per cent. What an indictment of the years of Thatcherism and of the present years of John Major's stewardship.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman referred to John Major. He must not do that. He must say "the Prime Minister".
  Mr. Cunningham: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said the Prime Minister. I hold the Prime Minister and his predecessor responsible for the situation.
  If Conservative MPs were to talk to business people and the Confederation of British Industry about the autumn statement they would get a different reply. They see the consequences as not giving much confidence to business people. Do hon. Members realise that small businesses are going to the wall at the rate of 10 per cent. a year? Since the autumn statement it has been disclosed that unemployment in the west midlands has gone up by 3 per cent. since September.
  Those are the real facts, not the Walter Mitty world in which Conservative Members seem to live.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Last Friday I attended a meeting of Coventry and Warwickshire CBI, which was attended also by some of the national leadership. They were asked, not by me but by a Conservative MP, what they thought of the autumn statement and if they regarded it as wonderful. Their
  776
  response was that the autumn statement was irrelevant. Those were their words. It had created no confidence in the leadership that there was any hope of recovery.
  Mr. Cunningham: That reinforces what I was saying; the business community very much has that opinion.
  Equally I condemn the fact that there are just under 300,000 people unemployed in the west midlands and that is rising. In answer to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), I condemn equally this Government's cuts of more than £7 million in local government spending in Coventry. Hon. Members should look at the effect of that on employment and on small businesses. Government policies in the west midlands are repeated throughout the country and will not help employment. Members of the Government Front Bench seem to find that amusing, but I do not think that unemployment is amusing.
  Conservative Members said that training and enterprise councils should be supported, but many people can tell them that the problem with TECs is that they are underfunded. I know people who went to a jobcentre and were told to take a TEC course, only to discover that the courses advertised were not available. That is the kind of experience that the unemployed are suffering as a result of the Government's training policies, particularly in relation to the young.
  Generations of young people have either never had a job or will, because of the abolition of wages councils, be working for slave wages. Those are the real issues that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh should address, rather than try to denigrate members of my Front Bench over what they might or might not have said. He should not try to imply that my right hon. and hon. Friends were in any way downgrading Britain. We are downgrading the Government, but we praise the British people for putting up with a Government who, having inflicted unemployment on this country, seem powerless to do anything about it.
  The Government also stand condemned over the peace dividend. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the Government had 14 years of negotiations in which to provide for the switch from defence industries to those having a peaceful purpose. They did nothing about that. The Government stand condemned in the eyes of not only this country but Europe.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: It was interesting to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), but his contribution did not quite reach the standard of his predecessor, which my hon. Friends and I always enjoyed. I am only sorry that the hon. Gentleman's predecessor did not do slightly better, because that might have let in the Conservative candidate at the general election. No doubt we shall hear more from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East before we are finished.
  I apologise for not being present for the start of the debate, but I shall read earlier speeches in Hansard with interest. Last week, I appeared on BBC television in the north-west with the Labour employment spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and I am glad that he did not make then his accusation about employers being scum, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) made reference.

  777
  I had intended to base my speech on Labour still being very much the tool of the trade unions, but I begin to wonder whether that would not be such a bad thing. I am glad that the new investment by Toray Textiles is supported by Manufacturing Science Finance, which said that "things are moving on". I wonder whether that is true of members of the Labour Front Bench.
  As the unions are beginning to adopt new attitudes, perhaps it would be a good thing if Labour kept its links with trade unions rather than trying to abandon them, as it seems to be thinking of doing. However, it seems to have a slim chance of doing so when people such as Mr. Tom Sawyer state, "No say, no pay," and while unions contribute most of the money on which the Labour party depends.
  I am glad that MSF supports inward investment, because it is so important to this country. Britain is now the most favoured location for inward investment in the world. No doubt that is because we have a strong enterprise culture after 13 years of Conservative government and the advantages of low taxes, our language, and our position in the European Community. All that makes us the No. 1 country for overseas investment outside the United States for the Americans, and for the Japanese and Germans after the United States.
  That is shown by the success of Inward, the north-west development agency, which records as much success in the first half of this year as in the whole of last year. The Royal Institute of International Affairs states that the total stock of worldwide direct investment will more than double between 1988 and 1995. There is no recession there.
  We are fortunate that this country is the preferred one for investment which is to grow on that scale.—[Interruption.] I do not see why the Opposition should laugh and reject the scale of investment by large international companies that is occurring.
  Take Glaxo, one of the leading manufacturing companies in the world. The Opposition seem to think that manufacturing is not profitable, but Glaxo is extremely profitable. It exports medical drugs all over the world. The Japanese may make more motorbikes than we do, but we certainly make a lot more pharmaceuticals than they do; we export to them. Glaxo has just announced that it is creating a new £17 million state of the art manufacturing and packaging base at Speke. This is an example of what can be done with large companies investing in this country because it is so attractive for them.
  Regional selective assistance has worked well for the north-west since 1983, when the map was redrawn. I hope that my hon. Friends will think carefully before altering the status at present enjoyed by my own constituency and other areas in the north-west. Unemployment in the north-west in 1983 was 3·1 per cent. more than for Great Britain as a whole. The latest published figures show that unemployment in the north-west is only 0·7 per cent. more than for the country as a whole. That shows that regional selective assistance has done much to reduce the unemployment rate in the north-west relative to the country as a whole. In my own constituency, 4,433 new jobs were created in small firms employing between one and 25 people between 1987 and 1989 as a result of our policies, which have encouraged small firms.
  778
  I draw the attention of the House to a publication that came out yesterday from the National Westminster bank, an economic survey by Mr. David Kern, who is very much respected. I recommend hon. Members to look at the figures which are quoted there for regional trends, which show how well the north-west and the north as a whole have done relative to the south. Making a prediction for 1993, Mr. Kern says that he expects
  "the northern regions to again outperform those in the south, although regional growth differences will be less pronounced."
  That is more evidence that Government regional policies have borne fruit. The fall in gross domestic product in the south of the country has not occurred in the north.
  The number of new firms registered for value added tax shows an increase of 1 per cent. in the north-west for the last full year, 1991, although there has been a decline in the south-east. Mr. Kern is predicting that there will be further increases in the number of firms registered in the north-west. [Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members laugh; small firms provide jobs. I rather think that they are not very keen to hear their Front-Bench spokesman. If they wanted to hear her, they would not be intervening and thus presumably cutting down the amount of time she has to speak. However, I should be very happy to take an intervention if that is what they want.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that this litany of all the wonderful things that are supposedly happening in this country belies the fact that we are in the middle of a recession and suggests that the Government do not understand that there are real problems with British industry, particularly manufacturing industry? They are destroying not only people's lives through losses of jobs, but the whole basis of Britain's economy.
  While the Conservative party continues to voice a litany of minor things that are happening in the economy, it misses the greater picture, which shows that our economy is in desperately serious trouble. Unless this is addressed, Parliament will not start to make policies that will get the economy out of this recession.
  Mr. Thurnham: The electorate chose the Conservative party to govern the country because the country really would be in a mess if Labour were allowed to introduce its anti-employment, anti-enterprise policies. There is no doubt that, in that event, we should find ourselves in the predicament that the hon. Gentleman describes. If the Conservatives espoused the policies of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—if we were opposed to enterprise, and called employers scum—we would have reason to worry about the future; but the present Government have introduced policies to help companies to expand, and, in particular, have helped new companies to take on employees. An example is the success of Bolton Business Ventures. The difference between the figures relating to Bolton and those relating to Bury reflect the good work done by Bolton's enterprise agency. Perhaps more should be done to set up new firms in Bury.
  Mr. Lewis: Bolton Business Ventures, of which I was one of the first directors for two years before I became a Member of Parliament, was created by a Labour council.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to describe to the House the presentation given by the Central Lancashire Engineering Employers Association to

  779
  Members of Parliament from the area only last week. He managed to stay for about 20 minutes; his Conservative colleagues did not get there at all.
  Mr. Thurnham: I shall not digress to discuss what the Engineering Employers Federation said in a paper which was prepared before the autumn statement, and which is therefore completely out of date. I have been asked to keep an eye on the clock, so I shall confine myself to saying that there is evidence that regional selective assistance works. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind when looking at the map.
  9.21 pm
  Ms. Joyce Quin: This has been a wide-ranging debate. Opposition Members in particular have expressed considerable concern about the extent of unemployment, and the economic problems that we face.
  Most Conservative Members have supported the Government's policies, although we have heard one or two coded criticisms. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) refer to the undervaluing of manufacturing in recent years: Opposition Members strongly agree with that. I was disappointed, however, when the Secretary of State again trotted out the weary argument that, by talking about the level of unemployment, Opposition Members were somehow talking the country down. It sometimes seems that the Government would like to use that as an excuse for engaging in no debate about the economic situation and unemployment. We cannot pretend that jobs are not being lost, but let me emphasise that Opposition Members are not talking the country down; rather, the Government have brought the country down through their disastrous economic policies.
  The gravity of the position has been borne out strongly by the figures that have been cited, especially by Opposition Members. Apart from unemployment, the small number of job vacancies is disturbing: about 29 applicants are chasing each vacancy. A couple of weeks ago, one of my local papers—The Journal (Newcastle)—stated that a staggering 3,000 people were chasing jobs in a new supermarket that was being opened in Whitley bay, Tyne and Wear. The company concerned soon ran out of job application forms, which is a sad reflection on the provision of job opportunities not just in that part of the country, but in almost all other parts.
  A striking feature of the current unemployment level is that it clearly affects all areas, not just those that have been traditionally saddled with the scourge of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) cited Basildon; let me cite Colchester, in whose travel-to-work area unemployment has increased by 171 per cent. in 18 months. It is estimated that it will grow by a further 19 per cent. by December next year, which is a higher rise than that predicted for Britain as a whole. The Essex men and women who voted Tory at the election—fortunately not all did—must rue the day that they helped the Government back into office.
  It seems that the Government have cured our deep-seated regional problems by presiding over an economy in which all regions are now experiencing economic decline. That came home to me dramatically this week when I, a Tyneside Member of Parliament, received a plea to support assisted area status for East Sussex. As parts of East Sussex and Kent scramble for assisted area status, I wonder how long it will be before the entire
  780
  country asks for it. The sad fact that all areas of the country are experiencing unemployment does not mean that the Government are absolved from producing an active regional policy. My colleagues and I believe that such a policy is still important.
  I was glad that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the work of the Welsh Development Agency, but I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), when referring to the Northern Development Company, did not explain that the Government were originally hostile to that initiative. It was formed by the local authorities, businesses in the north and the trade unions. It was only as it became successful that the Government decided to support it. Regional policy is important, and I pay tribute to the other development agencies which have done much valuable work. The Government should follow our advice on regional policy by expanding the agencies' work and should bring about economic decentralisation, which is badly needed.
  It has been pointed out today that all sectors of our economy have been losing out badly. Unlike the deep recession experienced in the early 1980s, all parts of the country and all sectors are now affected. The job losses which have already occurred in the banking sector and those which are predicted in that sector in the next couple of years will total about 250,000, which is a huge number in a sector on which, we are told, we would be relying for the future.
  What remains of our manufacturing and industrial base is also being savagely hit. That was made evident in some of my hon. Friends' speeches, for example, those of my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) who spoke in some detail and with great feeling about the plight of the Cammell Laird shipyard—sentiments with which I wish to associate myself. It is a tragedy that the yard is closing at this time. The Government should intervene to allow the work force to put into practice their ideas for the continuation of the yard.
  What my hon. Friends said was backed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) who also discussed the problems facing his area and the defence industry, on which his town is almost wholly reliant. I believe that VSEL at Barrow and Cammell Laird and companies such as Swan Hunter would benefit considerably from Government intervention on their behalf. There are practical measures which the Government could take to help such companies. They could, for example, reopen with the European Community the issue of whether warship yards can get access to intervention funding. We should like the Government to take that step.
  Some hon. Members—Conservative and Labour—referred to the coal industry and mentioned their fears for the future. Of course, that issue is very much on our minds at present.
  Mr. Jack Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that coal mining areas will not only lose 100,000 jobs and that we shall have to depend on wives working to keep the homes going but that the wives are also losing their factory jobs?
  Ms. Quin: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Perhaps the Minister will give us an estimate of the total number of job

  781
  losses if the pit closure programme were to go ahead. We know that not only the 30,000 jobs but many related jobs and jobs belonging to the families of miners and the communities in which they live will also be lost. We should like the Government publicly to apologise to the miners whom they were prepared to see made redundant with only two days' notice. Do the Government understand how that decision shocked public opinion, not only here but in parts of the European Community and even in the United States where the decision was widely reported?
  The constituents to whom I have talked have a gut reaction about the decision on the coal industry. They ask how the Government can possibly allow such a valuable national resource to be thrown away. They ask whether the Government really care about the unemployed when they were prepared to add 30,000 people to the dole queue in such a cavalier and dismissive manner.
  Hon. Members have referred to the plight of particular groups of the unemployed. They have referred to the long-term unemployed and to the alarming rise in their number. Although I was glad to hear the Secretary of State announce some measures for the long-term unemployed, I should like her to increase her efforts in that respect. Long-term unemployment is a terrible scourge in our society. There are ways in which the Government and the various agencies could prevent unemployed people from becoming long-term unemployed. The Government need to respond in detail to some of the initiatives proposed by bodies such as the Council of Europe.
  Many hon. Members mentioned the alarming problem of youth unemployment. I quote a figure given to me by Tyneside training and enterprise council. The council says that 26 per cent. of people aged between 18 and 24 have no previous work experience. That depressing figure shows how difficult it is for youngsters to get work experience in the middle of a recession when so many companies are sacking people rather than taking them on.
  Another aspect of unemployment is the position of older workers who are trying to gain employment. It was depressing when I talked last week to a constituent, a lively and skilled man in his early 50s, who has written literally thousands of job applications. He has often not even had a response. In the days of the citizens charter it should perhaps at least be incumbent on employers to respond to people who send applications to them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to women in the labour market. Women are also losing out badly in the recession. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said, we must remember that the official statistics underestimate the number of women who are unemployed. The Government should take the position of women in the labour market firmly into consideration. It would help if the Secretary of State and employment Ministers talked to people at the Equal Opportunities Commission in Manchester which, I understand, they have not visited in recent months.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Has the hon. Lady seen the results of the 1991 census which show a huge increase over 1981 in the number of adult women now in the work force?
  Ms. Quin: We know that there has been a big increase in women's employment, especially in part-time employment and, unfortunately for many women, in low-paid employment about which it would be nice to hear some concern from Conservative Members.
  Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned working conditions. Indeed, we could have a whole debate on that worrying subject. If Ministers look at all the various early-day motions on the Order Paper, they will see that many express hon. Members' concern about the poor working conditions in Britain today. It is depressing that the Government seem to want to compete in Europe on the basis of poor working conditions and poor wages. I do not believe that that is the way forward and I believe that the Opposition's message has been clear. We want unemployment to be halted, but we also want the best future for Britain in high-quality and high-skill jobs, and not in low-paid jobs in sweatshop conditions.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Quin: No, I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I am short of time because many speakers wanted to take part in the debate. That has left my time rather short.
  I refer the Government to the interesting debate in another place on unemployment. There was an impressive degree of unity on all sides of that Chamber about the measures needed to tackle unemployment. Contrary to what some Conservative Members have said tonight, the Opposition have proposed many measures that we feel would help tackle the current unemployment problem.
  It was clear in the other place that a boost to the construction industry was the most hopeful way forward. That point was echoed in Labour's alternative autumn statement. We proposed a boost to the construction industry far in excess of the rather timid measures proposed in the Government's autumn statement.
  A boost to the construction industry is considered to be a better way forward than other ways to revive the economy upon which the Government have tended to rely in the past—for example, consumer spending. It is hard to imagine that consumer spending will get us out of the recession. Too many people who bought on credit have had their fingers badly burnt. Given the poor state of our industrial base, a consumer revival would also tend to be spent on imported goods.
  It is also unrealistic to expect the private housing market to pick up and provide a boost. In the midst of a recession and at a time of record housing repossessions, people are hardly in the business of purchasing new houses. A programme of public works, construction and infrastructure referred to by many Opposition Members is very important for the future. The Government should do a great deal more in that respect.
  The Government should also join their European colleagues in providing a similar boost to construction and infrastructure in Europe as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that he thought we should have a renewed Marshall plan in Europe. When I consider the problems in eastern Europe and, in particular, the tremendous environmental degradation in those countries, I would like to see an environmental Marshall plan in which many countries join together in a trade-and-aid package to improve the environment of eastern Europe.

  783
  Companies in Britain would be in a good position to take advantage of such a plan. It is unrealistic to expect eastern European countries to have the hard currency to buy products, but such a trade-and-aid package would be useful in future and is something that we should consider very seriously.
  The Secretary of State referred to discussions in the European Council of Ministers and admitted that, for the first time, there was serious discussion about unemployment at the Social Affairs Council just a few days ago. We believe that that is an incredible admission. The British presidency should have been pushing unemployment from the moment that we assumed the presidency in June.
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment said in June that
  "our first priority must be to ensure that there are measures to create jobs".—[Official Report, 9 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 133.]
  It is now December and precious little seems to have been achieved. We can only hope that the Edinburgh summit will produce something in that respect.
  Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Ms. Quin: I am afraid not, because time is short and the Minister needs time to reply.
  My colleagues made a great deal of the great social cost of unemployment. They referred to the strain on families and the soul-destroying effect on communities. The relationship between unemployment and crime was also mentioned. As usual, Conservative Members pooh-poohed that and tried to claim that we were equating the unemployed with criminals.
  It was refreshing that in a recent debate in the other place, the Government spokesman stated clearly that there is a strong link between unemployment and crime. I am far from suggesting that the unemployed are criminals, as I see too many unemployed people in my constituency who are victims of crime rather than perpetrators of crime. However, I believe that crime can and does flourish in conditions of unemployment, poverty and desperation.
  Having listened to the contributions of Conservative Members, I am far from convinced that the Government appreciate the sheer scale and acute gravity of the situation that faces us. It is very difficult to see the Government's economic strategy or their strategy for tackling unemployment. Their previous economic theories have failed and have been replaced by uncertain and tentative measures of the kind outlined in the autumn statement. The slogan "There is no alternative" has been replaced by "There is no direction." However, there has been some stealing of Labour's clothes. Perhaps it is the Government's new strategy to steal Labour's clothes. It is the only strategy that I can find in the current circumstances.
  The Minister may have seen the current issue of Scottish Business Insider in which various fund managers talk about current economic policy. Mr. Maclean, the managing director of Scottish Value Managements, made this point about the stealing of Labour's clothes: "They"—the Government—
  "already seem to be raking over the Labour manifesto knowing … that there's going to be a tremendous social and fiscal concern as redundancies rise … I think what we may see is a Government that's incorporating a lot more of Labour's policy into its programme over the next few years."
  784
  The general public will believe the genuine article rather than the pale imitation.
  Even more tragically, the Government could have invested in our country when they were running a huge surplus. If they had invested in infrastructure and so on in the years when we were running a budget surplus, we would be better able to withstand the recession and the economic and social effects of it. If we had taken the necessary measures in more prosperous times, when we were running a budget surplus and had the profits from the North sea, we would not be in the difficult position that we are at present. The Government did not take the necessary measures when they should have done, and for that they will not be forgiven.
  The Conservative party's election promises on the economy, which were made only six months ago, have been shown to be an absolute sham, and the Government have been totally discredited. The Government should admit their failure, apologise to the electorate and preferably go to the country again before they do any more damage.
  9.41 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) about the difficulties of giving youngsters the opportunity for placements in a recession. I also agree with what she said about the discrimination that exists against older workers. My only disappointment is that while she was in the European Parliament she was unable to get the European institutions which still place age limits in their advertisements for recruitment to change their policy. Frankly, to see the European Commission and other institutions advertising for all sorts of people at all levels, saying that people over the age of 35 need not apply, is not only distressing for those of us over the age of 35 but completely unacceptable.
  The hon. Lady' s speech was interesting because it revealed a new type of snobbery on the Labour Benches. Opposition Members are part-time snobs who sneer at part-time jobs. Part-time jobs are every bit as good as any other jobs. The vast majority of people with part-time jobs say in survey after survey that they would prefer to have part-time jobs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is muttering. He complained about Conservative Members having more than one job, and falsely accused my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). If the hon. Gentleman is worried about any hon. Member having two jobs, he should put his own backyard in order and deal with those hon. Members who are still Members of the European Parliament.
  We have heard much from hon. Members on both sides about unemployment. Families all around the country—those in work and those out of work—are gravely worried about the present position. I very much share the strength of feeling and the sympathy that has gone out to those who are affected. I understand the pressures, uncertainties and unhappiness that unemployment can bring.
  Unemployment is a problem which Governments across Europe face, and it arises from a recession which is world wide. The Government are clear about what we must do. We must help our companies to compete in world markets. That means getting inflation down, controlling public expenditure and creating a stable economic

  785
  framework and opportunities for unemployed people to improve their skills and get back into work. We start from a firm base.
  I know that Opposition Members cannot bear to hear good news about the economy. Let me give the hon. Members for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) a few facts. The United Kingdom has a higher proportion of its adult population in work than any other EC country except Denmark. Employment has grown in the United Kingdom by 1·8 million during the nine years that I have been a Member of Parliament. But I heard no references to that striking growth in job opportunities in any of the speeches made by Opposition Members.
  In the decade which was dominated by the last Labour Government, self-employment stagnated. In the Conservative decade of the 1980s, it grew by more than 1 million. None of that happened by magic. It happened because the Conservative party knows that jobs are created by the initiative of business and the commitment of those who work in those businesses. Jobs can come only from incentives, competitiveness, efficiency and enterprise.
  The Opposition pretended tonight that they could create jobs if only they were in government. They would tax; that would destroy jobs. They would increase interest rates; that would destroy jobs. They would regulate and interfere; that would destroy jobs. The only jobs that they would create would be jobs for the boys, which the Leader of the Opposition has discovered in his constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) said.
  Our way is to work with business and to work for individuals. We fought to remove the burden of outdated and unnecessary legislation and regulation which is so corrosive of opportunities for employment.
  Mr. Henry McLeish: What about the donation to Tory party funds from Thames Water?
  Mr. Forsyth: When Thames Water was a nationalised concern it was inefficient. It is now so successful that the Opposition plan to tax it to pay for the promises that they make every day of the week.
  We had to put in place effective and innovative ways of helping unemployed people back to work. We are not and we shall not be complacent. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has announced half a million more opportunities to help those who are unemployed.
  Mr. McLeish: Where is the cash?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman asks where is the cash. Opposition Members are always interested in cash. They are interested in the input, but never in the output. We are concerned about what comes out at the end. I am talking about half a million new opportunities through job clubs, training and assistance to start up in business. That is direct help, yet it was not even acknowledged by the Opposition tonight, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  The Opposition's record does not bear examination. How many places did they provide for young people? They provided just 9,000 training places for young people at a time when, because of the 1960s baby boom, more
  786
  youngsters were entering the labour market than at any time in recent history. We provided 290,000 places. So let us have no more lectures from Opposition Members about what we need to do.
  Of course, losing a job is a traumatic experience. But most people remain unemployed for a relatively short period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not true".] I do not know how Opposition Members expect to build up the confidence of people who have lost their job by making remarks like that. The fact is that two thirds of those who become unemployed leave the register within six months. That is thanks to the excellent work carried out by the Employment Service throughout Britain. What a pity that no Opposition Members felt it appropriate to pay tribute to the excellent work that those people do.
  Some people have real difficulty in finding work. They are entitled to expect extra support and help. Some have particular difficulties with literacy and numeracy. As I confirmed to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), help with literacy and numeracy is part of the package introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  For the long term, the Government's education reforms offer hope for the next generation. That hope would have been extinguished if the Opposition, supporting the teaching unions, had had their way. We face increasing worldwide competition from not only our traditional competitors but the expanding economies of South America and the Pacific rim. Worldwide competition needs to be beaten by a working population with ever-increasing levels of skill and maximum adaptability.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly highlighted the importance of small businesses as the engine of job creation, and the fact that interest rate reductions brought about by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been of the greatest importance to them. I agree with her citicism of the European Community which has concentrated on adding to the burdens on business as part of its social affairs programme instead of focusing on the needs of the unemployed and the means for creating jobs. During her presidency of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has changed that, and I am sorry that Opposition Members felt unable to give her credit for that singular achievement.
  The hon. Member for Mossley Hill emphasised the importance of the maxim, "The devil makes work for idle hands." That is why it is so important that young people are either in work, training or education and that they are not able to claim benefit, with nothing to apply themselves to, as Opposition Members have argued.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) told us of his experience as an employer and confirmed that wages councils destroy jobs. He also highlighted the importance of the pharmaceutical industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) drew attention to the fact that there are fewer employment opportunities for young people and women in EC countries that have enforced policies favoured by the Labour party.
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) spoke of his concern for employment and the importance of work for the shipyards. I could not help thinking how relieved he must have been that a Labour

  787
  Government did not take office as the fourth Trident, on which so many of his constituents depend, would have been cancelled.
  Mr. Hutton: Does the Minister not agree that it was the opinion of my constituents that their best prospect for secure employment would be the return of a Labour Government in April, because they elected a Labour Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Forsyth: I recall the hon. Gentleman bouncing into the headlines during the election campaign, by contradicting the shadow Foreign Secretary and saying that it was rubbish that Labour would cancel Trident, so I am not convinced by his protestations.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) called for tax increases to fund increased public expenditure, but last month the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said:
  "We are not proposing to raise income tax or national insurance at this stage. Further increases at this time would be a mistake."
  The hon. Lady should sort out her position with that of the Labour Front Bench. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East in his assessment of how disastrous tax increases would be, but I sympathise with the hon. Lady who cannot see where the money to pay for the hon. Gentleman's promises will come from. Perhaps she shares the views of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who in The Guardian accused the shadow Chancellor of not understanding the elementary laws of arithmetic. I shall leave the hon. Lady to sort that matter out.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: It is right that Labour should continue its policy of advocating an increase in taxation for those who received the highest tax benefits as a result of past Government policies. However, I understand that that issue is to be considered by the Commission for Social Justice and then we shall return with our policies on the issue.
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady's problem is that she supports one tax policy while the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East supports another, but she should not be too concerned about that, as it has been a traditional position in the Labour party for four successive general election losses.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead welcomed the Labour Front-Bench's commitment to full employment but said, rather honestly, that that was the easy part and that the party had to work out the policies to deliver that or face a fifth election defeat. I fear that he may be disappointed. He spoke movingly of the desperate problems in his constituency and of the situation at Cammell Laird, the details of which I shall pass on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Only once in one lifetime of 70 years have a Labour Government managed to leave office without having doubled unemployment. It is rather like Haley's comet—one gets to see it only once in a lifetime. Since 1979, Opposition Members have opposed every training programme we have introduced and criticised every measure that we have taken to help the unemployed get back to work. They opposed employment training, youth training, employment action and now they appear to be opposed to training for work.
  788
  Every new training initiative since 1979 has been greeted by a chorus of condemnation at trade union conferences, and when the organ grinder cranks out the familiar tune, the monkey leaps into action. The trade union that has invariably taken the lead has been the Transport and General Workers Union, the biggest union in the country and the union which sponsors the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.
  What policies do Opposition Members claim to have to reduce unemployment? When Opposition spokesmen appear on television, they talk airily about an industrial strategy. What do they mean? They are afraid to tell us, but we know what they mean. They mean a return to the massive, wasteful subsidies of the 1970s, subsidies paid at the behest of trade union leaders to firms, preferably in the public sector, to persuade them to produce goods and services that nobody wants to buy.
  When Opposition Members talk of industrial strategy, they mean interference in the plans of private sector companies, in the spirit that the man in Whitehall always knows best. That is not all, for it would mean a training levy on all employers, a tax on jobs and a national minimum wage which even the Fabian Society estimates would cost 800,000 jobs—and would cut 2 million jobs if the trade unions ensured that existing pay differentials were preserved.
  Of course, Opposition Members are committed to accept each and every proposal for a new job-destroying regulation that comes out of Brussels—the social charter, the social action programme and now the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty. The Opposition would embrace them all, no matter what the price in lost jobs and inward investment. If it advances socialism, no price is too high for them.
  There are 17 million unemployed people in the European Community. The Opposition's response is to raise the cost of creating new jobs right across the Community, to impose new burdens on employers and to smother enterprise in a mass of new regulations. The truth is that the Opposition have nothing to offer Britain. That is why they have lost four general elections in a row.
  The policies that the Opposition opposed in the past—the sale of council houses and the privatisation of loss-making state enterprises—have all proved successful. They respond not by admitting their mistakes but by threatening to tax the profits of the new successful enterprises and thus threaten their growth and employment.
  Opposition Members attack the Government for controlling the spending of receipts from council house sales, receipts that would not even be there if they had had their way.
  Their former leader, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), let the cat out of the bag during an interview on BBC2 last Saturday. He admitted that the Labour party's promise in the 1987 general election to create 1 million new jobs in two years by a massive programme of public expenditure was "appealing but not believable."
  What the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise, in common with Opposition Members tonight, was that after the general election in 1987, unemployment fell by more than 1 million in less than two years. It did so without any of Labour's crushingly expensive new programmes. We did it by ensuring that the economic

  789
  conditions were right for the creation of new jobs, by keeping taxes and public expenditure down, by deregulation and by reducing burdens on business.
  What we have heard from the Opposition Benches in this debate has been simply a relentless and systematic attempt to paint the most pessimistic picture of the current employment situation. It is the privilege of Opposition Members to whinge and moan, but I say in all seriousness that they have done no service to the unemployed of this country by taking such a narrow, partisan approach in the debate.
  It is time that the Opposition recognised that the only way to reduce unemployment is through the creation of new jobs, which depend on British companies making and selling the goods and services that people want to buy. New jobs depend on companies overseas investing in this country.
  Let Labour Members leave the House with their former leader's judgment ringing in their ears—"appealing but not believable".
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 309.

  Division No. 97]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Alton, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coffey, Ann

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Barnes, Harry

  Cousins, Jim

  Barron, Kevin

  Cox, Tom

  Battle, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Beggs, Roy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Darling, Alistair

  Bell, Stuart

  Davidson, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benton, Joe

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bermingham, Gerald

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

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dewar, Donald

  Blair, Tony

  Dixon, Don

  Blunkett, David

  Dobson, Frank

  Boateng, Paul

  Dowd, Jim

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bradley, Keith

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Eastham, Ken

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Enright, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Foulkes, George

  790

  Fraser, John

  Mahon, Alice

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mandelson, Peter

  Galbraith, Sam

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Garrett, John

  Martlew, Eric

  George, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  Meacher, Michael

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meale, Alan

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Michael, Alun

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Milburn, Alan

  Gould, Bryan

  Miller, Andrew

  Graham, Thomas

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Gunnell, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hall, Mike

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hanson, David

  Mudie, George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mullin, Chris

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hinchliffe, David

  Olner, William

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Home Robertson, John

  Parry, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Doug

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Prescott, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hutton, John

  Purchase, Ken

  Illsley, Eric

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Ingram, Adam

  Radice, Giles

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Redmond, Martin

  Janner, Greville

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Salmond, Alex

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Snape, Peter

  McCartney, Ian

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  McMaster, Gordon

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stevenson, George

  McWilliam, John

  Stott, Roger

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  791

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Trimble, David

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis

  Wilson, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Wise, Audrey

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Worthington, Tony

  Wallace, James

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walley, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Wicks, Malcolm

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Couchman, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Ancram, Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Devlin, Tim

  Ashby, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Atkins, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baldry, Tony

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bates, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Batiste, Spencer

  Elletson, Harold

  Bendall, Vivian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bowis, John

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Brazier, Julian

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Freeman, Roger

  Burns, Simon

  French, Douglas

  Burt, Alistair

  Fry, Peter

  Butcher, John

  Gale, Roger

  Butler, Peter

  Gallie, Phil

  Butterfill, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Garnier, Edward

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gill, Christopher

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Cash, William

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Gorst, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Colvin, Michael

  Hague, William

  Congdon, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Conway, Derek

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  792

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Page, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

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

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Redwood, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Richards, Rod

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Key, Robert

  Sackville, Tom

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knox, David

  Sims, Roger

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lidington, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lightbown, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stephen, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stern, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Allan

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sweeney, Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Marland, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thurnham, Peter

  Milligan, Stephen

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Mills, Iain

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Tredinnick, David

  Moate, Roger

  Trend, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Viggers, Peter

  Needham, Richard

  Walden, George

  793

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Willetts, David

  Waller, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Ward, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Wolfson, Mark

  Watts, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Yeo, Tim

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Whitney, Ray

  Whittingdale, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the need for the United Kingdom economy to remain competitive at a time of world recession; rejects the job destroying policies of Her Majesty's Opposition including the national minimum wage; notes that the United Kingdom has the second highest proportion of its population in employment of any country in the European Community; congratulates the Government on the new opportunities afforded by the Autumn Statement; and welcomes the Government's new package of 1·5 million employment and training opportunities providing more help than ever before to help unemployed people get back into work.

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

      ESTATE AGENTS
      That the Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2833), dated 11th November 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th November, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Question agreed to.

  Mink Keeping
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I beg to move,
  That the Mink Keeping Order 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
  The order is made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. It is concerned with ensuring that mink are kept securely under arrangements designed to prevent escapes. The Act itself provides for the keeping of non-indigenous species of mammals to be either prohibited or controlled by licence on the basis of their destructive habits. It does not provide for the keeping of mink to be prohibited for any other reason.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about ferrets?
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This order is not concerned with ferrets, a much-loved national institution, particularly on the Labour side of the House.
  The order replaces existing controls for Great Britain which expire on 31 December. If the order were not to be approved, the result would be, not a prohibition on mink keeping, but the absence of any controls on the keeping of mink, including the crucial security requirements.
  I hope that it is clear that the welfare of mink is not a subject relevant to the mink keeping order and therefore not relevant to this debate tonight. However, I understand and appreciate that the welfare of fur animals is a subject about which many hon. Members quite rightly have concerns and on which they receive a considerable amount of correspondence, most of which, regrettably, ends up on my desk. I should therefore make the Government's position on welfare quite clear.
  In April 1989 the Farm Animal Welfare Council, to whose advice the Government attaches the first importance, published a statement on the welfare of mink and fox, the two species farmed for their fur in this country. While expressing its disapproval of the current methods of fur farming, the council did not recommend that they should be stopped. In August this year the council confirmed that it has not changed its position on this difficult matter. At about this time, the Council of Europe——
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister just mentioned the Farm Animal Welfare Council. In its report it said that the systems employed did not satisfy some of the most basic criteria for protecting the welfare of farm animals, so what conclusion may be drawn from that? Surely that no mink should be kept for farming purposes.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Member is correct in believing that the council concluded that it did not approve of this sort of farming, but it did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to ask for it to be banned. If I may, I shall come to that matter in more detail later.
  At about this time, the Council of Europe was also examining the question of fur farming. In 1990, it adopted a welfare recommendation on fur-bearing animals under the convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.
  That recommendation lays down general requirements for the welfare of all fur species. The requirements cover

  795
  such things as the need for sufficient numbers of stockmen, inspections and general provisions for enclosures in which the animals are kept and management practices. Those requirements are supplemented by appendices laying down more specific details for each type of fur animal.
  The European Commission said that it will use that recommendation as the basis for a welfare directive that will set standards for the keeping of fur-bearing animals throughout the Community. However, I am the first to acknowledge that that recommendation from the Council of Europe will not alter significantly the husbandry practices currently used. The Council of Europe, as with the Farm Animal Welfare Council before it—to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—found a lack of scientific evidence on which to base requirements for change.
  That does not mean that sensible standards cannot be set that improve on the Council of Europe recommendation. It is the Government's clear intention to press for the highest-possible welfare standards for fur farming to be adopted on a Community-wide basis when the Commission's proposals are negotiated in Brussels.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Does not the Minister agree that, while waiting for the EEC to produce a directive, the Government should take action to ensure that mink farms are maintained at a decent standard? My information is that the standards on some farms are appalling.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is right. We should and do maintain high standards. The state veterinary service and ADAS inspect fur farms every year to ensure not only that the husbandry is correct but that the animal welfare standards are right. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a positive supporter of Europe, and will agree that in such instances it is better to achieve a pan-European initiative rather than forge ahead alone.
  Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we are dealing with sentient animals and that it is absolutely obscene to keep them in barren, grotty, small cages? Will he explain why he is not prepared to recommend that mink keeping and mink factory farming should be phased out as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has a fine record on animal welfare issues, but he ought to know that we are not debating that matter tonight. The debate centres instead on the security required for the keeping of mink. Many people hold views similar to those of my hon. Friend, and we will listen very carefully to them.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister will confirm that the standards in the Council of Europe report, which I hope will be emulated by the Community at an early date, could serve as the minimum. Nothing in the report prevents the Government from improving on those standards, which were aimed at countries whose standards are perhaps even worse than those found in this country.
  Will the Minister, before he sits down, address the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the security requirements? Over the years, a substantial number of mink have escaped, but nobody appears to have been brought to book.
  Mr. Soames: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has done an enormous amount of animal welfare work in the Council of Europe, for which we are very grateful. I shall deal with the security issue at some length, if I am allowed to make progress with my speech.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is right to say that the standards implied by the Council of Europe are minimum standards and there is nothing to stop the Government building on them. In fact, other Community countries are considering doing precisely that. We shall watch with care what transpires.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Minister will be aware of the Swalesmoor farm in my constituency and of the problems which it created for me as a constituency Member of Parliament—and which I was not allowed to mention in the recent court case. Apart from the smells, and so on, a major problem was that the farm was not secure and the animals escaped. They wiped out indigenous animals in whole areas. I appealed to the Minister and to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and went through the whole system, but it seemed that no one had any responsibility for ensuring that that hell hole of a farm adhered to the odd regulation that did exist. I know that the Minister has seen the photographs and needs no convincing of what a mess that place was. I know that we will get a fairer hearing in this Chamber than we did in the recent court case.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady has considerable experience in this matter because of her constituency interest, but I have to say that the allegations about mink escapes in this country are very much overdone and I have to take issue with the hon. Lady on that point.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: This is perhaps an appropriate point at which to ask the Minister why the Isle of Arran, in my constituency, is excluded from the general prohibition on mink keeping on the islands, in precisely the same way as some 20 years ago. Because a mink farm was established on Arran and the mink escaped, there is a problem already with mink there. It seems to me extremely odd logic to say that, because there are wild mink which people are trying desperately to get rid of, the problem should at some future date be compounded by allowing another mink farm on Arran, whereas it would be impossible on every other Scottish island.
  Mr. Soames: It is certainly not an act of personal spite on my part towards the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, but I intend to come to the Scottish question a little later. As it is a very important matter, we feel that we should deal with it separately.
  Farmed fur animals are protected in the same way as other farmed livestock by the general provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. This makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any livestock on agricultural land. In addition, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. It also requires the killing of fur animals to be undertaken with great care and all possible humaneness.
  Officers of the state veterinary service monitor fur farms, as they do all other livestock farms, to check on compliance with legislation. When visiting fur farms, they

  797
  use the Council of Europe recommendations as a guide for their inspections. The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 prohibits absolutely the keeping of mink on all offshore islands of the United Kingdom which have neither mink farms nor a wild population, and in the Scottish highlands where the same situation exists. The keeping of mink elsewhere is permitted only under licence.
  The new order continues the policy which has been adopted by successive Governments since 1962. It seeks to, and does, balance the interests of a small sector of farming activity with the need to protect other farmers and wildlife from the very substantial potential damage which escaped mink could cause.
  This order renews the existing powers to control mink for a further five years. Mink will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975, as amended. These lay down stringent requirements covering such matters as the cages or containers in which mink must be kept, the buildings or enclosures containing the cages and, very important, the perimeter fence surrounding the housed mink.
  I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth about the detail of security arrangements. It may be helpful in discussing this order if I draw hon. Members' attention to just how detailed these requirements are. Mink must be kept in cages or other containers constructed to prevent escape within an enclosure or building which also satisfies the legislation. Enclosures must be bounded by a guard fence made of wire netting or welded mesh of a specified gauge and mesh size. It must be at least 1·2 metres high above ground level. The base of the fence must be buried in the ground to a depth of at least 300 mm and turned outwards at the bottom at right angles for at least 150 mm, or be embedded in a trench of the same depth at the bottom of which is a foundation at least 150 mm deep of either concrete or consolidated hardcore of brick or concrete rubble or similar solid and durable material.
  Mr. Tony Banks: This is all very interesting, and I am sure that if every farm complied with the regulations there would be no escapes. I have a catalogue of photographs of Swalesmoor—I have shown them to the Minister—which make it clear that all the regulations that the Minister has talked about are being blatantly ignored, yet Swalesmoor is given a licence by his Department. It is all very well for him to give us assurances; in reality, they simply do not apply to places such as Swalesmoor. What is he going to do about it?
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is all very well, but I am dealing with the order, as the House expects me to. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make his own speech—and I have no doubt that he will be called—we shall deal with the points that he raises.
  As I have already said, it is a grossly exaggerated assumption that mink farms are constantly experiencing escapes. That is simply not true. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to show me the photographs to which he refers, and he knows very well that I was not happy with what I saw. If he makes his own speech, I shall deal with his points later.
  Mr. William Ross: The Minister said that the fence should be buried and turned outwards.
  798
  Surely it should be turned inwards, that being the side from which the mink would normally be coming. A fence should be turned outwards to keep rabbits out of a plantation, so surely it should be turned inwards to keep mink in.
  Mr. Soames: The British mink is a crafty little varmint. We put up fences to fox him. Anyway, that is what it says in the brief, and I am not prepared to gainsay the admirable advice given by excellent officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  At the top of the fence there must be flat sheet metal, at least 300 mm deep, attached to the inside of the wire netting and to any fence placed inside the enclosure, to form a continuous baffle leaving no gap between the wire and the sheet metal. These stringent requirements are designed to ensure that, even if mink manage to escape from their cages or containers and evade the cage traps which must by law be set in each building or enclosure where mink are kept—and the House should know that mink are extremely easy to catch—they will be unable to escape into the countryside through, under or over the guard fence.
  Thirty years ago, when licensing was introduced to this country, there were about 700 mink farms. In 1987 there were only about 62, with 100,000 mink. Now there are only 27 establishments, with approximately 47,000 mink. Standards of security are high. Mink farmers are obliged under the terms of their licences to report escapes to the Ministry's regional service centres.
  Mr. John Gorst: May I ask my hon. Friend, in all seriousness, whether his statistics give us any idea how many mink are not under lock and key?
  Mr. Soames: Let me reply, in all seriousness, that the country already has a substantial feral mink population. Mink are a pest, and it is therefore extremely important for farms to maintain a high standard of security. The technical details that I have read out are not a matter for levity, as the Opposition consider them, but a serious matter which should command the assent and support of the whole House.
  Standards are high. As I have said, the terms of their licence oblige mink farmers to report escapes. In the five years since the latest review, only one report of an escape has been received from a mink farmer. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the House to mock, but this is a serious matter. The House should listen with care and attention to the origin and nature of that mink break-out. The escape was occasioned by the storms of 1989, not by lax security. Despite all the allegations, there has been no confirmed evidence presented to my Department of unreported escapes from specific farms. Nevertheless, there is a serious potential for long-term and short-term damage from escaping mink. The continuation of licensing, with an inspection at least annually, ensures that mink farms give priority to physical security. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West rightly attaches such importance.
  There is one small change from the previous order which affects Scotland and has been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The change is to include Harris, Lewis and associated small islands as an area of the country where there is a total ban on the keeping of mink.

  799
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked why Arran was excluded. There is a natural feral population of mink on Arran—as one would expect from the hon. Gentleman's constituency—so there is no point in applying the regulations. As we do not believe in applying regulations except where they are necessary, the hon. Gentleman will understand the sense of the order.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I am a keen angler and have been fishing in some remote parts of Scotland—the southern uplands, around my own area and the highlands. As I see it, there are no natural mink; they have been imported and they are ecological disasters. I am serious; I am not laughing because I see ducklings and a host of other animals and birds slaughtered by the score. The mink are vicious, but nobody seems to take responsibility for them unless they interfere with game birds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] This is when Conservative hon. Members start getting interested. The best way to cure the problem is to stop them being kept under present conditions.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, and I share his interest in angling. It is true that the feral population of mink in this country can and does cause considerable damage. There are proper methods for trapping them, but I do not think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point during the debate on the order. However, I should be happy to discuss it with him on another occasion. I agree that mink are a serious problem for anglers.
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective and humane way of killing mink in the wild is to hunt them with hounds such as the West Yorkshire mink hound? If many Opposition Members had their way, such hunting would be banned.
  Mr. Soames: It would be a bad day if it were banned, but, although I am a keen supporter of mink hounds, I do not think that even the greatest proponent of mink hunting would claim that they are a very effective method of controlling mink. They nevertheless fulfil an important role in the countryside and their right to do so 'will be defended to the end by the Government.
  In 1970——
  Mr. Wilson rose——
  Mr. Soames: I must get on. Would the hon. Gentleman please—oh, very well then.
  Mr. Wilson: It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to deal with the issues because I believe that he is making a factual error. The circumstances of Harris, Lewis and Arran are the same. On Harris and Lewis irresponsible people opened mink farms 20 or 30 years ago and the rest of the community has been left with the problem. On Arran there was a mink farm 20 years ago. I have just phoned Arran and was told that its one benefit was that it got rid of the rats—which no doubt explains my presence! The benefit for the community of saying that there would never be another mink farm there would be undoubted. There may also be an indigenous population. However, surely that is splitting hairs. The problem in Arran is identified as the fact that there was a mink farm there which left the legacy of wild mink.
  Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on surface rodents, seems to see the issue in black and white and without a fine regard for the truth. In Harris and Lewis, there is the Harris and Lewis mink control group. It is attempting to raise funds to carry out a programme of trapping. The initial proposal was for a three-year programme costing more than £65,000. However, the group is having difficulty raising funds and is now planning a reduced programme.
  We have taken this step for Harris and Lewis because Scottish Natural Heritage has asked us to do so. We are anxious to help our friends in Scottish Natural Heritage and in the Scottish Office on any occasions when we can. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North wishes us to consider matters on Arran, we shall be happy to do so. I look forward to having a discussion with him to that end.
  In 1970, there were about 70 mink farms in Scotland alone. By that time, mink farming in Harris and Lewis had ceased for some years. In 1987, when the previous review was carried out, eight farms operated in Scotland. Now only two hold licences. Given the passage of time and the greatly reduced number of licences, it seems right now to prohibit mink keeping in Harris and Lewis. As I have said to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, during consultation the proposal was put to us by Scottish Natural Heritage in support of efforts being made locally. That course of action has also been warmly endorsed and recommended by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
  I apologise for detaining the House for so long. I can confirm that the issue of licences, at the discretion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be exercised with the greatest care. Requests for licences from new establishments will be considered in principle before applicants incur expense in preparing for mink farming. If it is appropriate, additional controls over and above those specifically laid down in mink keeping legislation will be contained in any licence issued. A licence will be refused if there is real doubt that it is possible to reduce the risk at a particular site to acceptable levels.
  The Act provides for the revocation of licences and we expect licensees to take their obligations extremely seriously. Annual inspections will ensure that they do so. I ask the House to approve the order.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The Minister has mentioned that the debate is on the order and not on the issue of welfare or on the prohibition of keeping think. I protest that, unlike the consultation in 1987, this consultation did not give the option of the banning of mink. The consultation offered was simply the choice of continuing with the Mink Keeping Order or ending it. Faced with such a choice, most organisations would naturally support the maintenance of the order. What we should be discussing is the prohibition of mink farming and of Arctic fox fur farming.
  The order has been inadequate over the years and has been poorly applied. The intention of the order, as the Minister said, was to prevent escapes of animals covered by the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. In that sense, the order has been a failure. So many mink have escaped over the years that I am surprised that there is not

  801
  a line of ferret-faced predators listening to the debate behind the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] I will not be drawn on that.
  It is important that the order is considered not only in terms of how it applies now, but in terms of how it will affect conservation issues and welfare issues. Can the Minister explain why the Isle of Arran, which has been mentioned, and the Isle of Wight have not been covered by the prohibition? There is no established feral mink population on the Isle of Wight. There is one mink farm, although I am not sure whether that still operates. The mink farm on the Isle of Wight was established without permission and permission was granted retrospectively. The farm is very near the Newtown site of special scientific interest which has a range of important ground-nesting birds.
  The Minister made it clear that he has accepted the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage in respect of the isles of Harris and Lewis. However, he is ignoring the advice of English Nature which recommended to the Government that there should be no keeping of mink on the Isle of Wight. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
  In respect of the Isle of Arran, I must confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said. There is no difference between the isles of Harris and Lewis, where there are feral mink populations and eradication programmes, and the Isle of Arran. It would be a great help if the Minister made it clear that no mink farms would be established on the Isle of Arran in future. Eradication programmes could remove the problem of mink in that area in future.
  Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman referred to not establishing new mink farms in a particular area. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential that there are no new mink farms anywhere? While my hon. Friend the Minister told us about the great reduction in numbers, something which we all welcome, the sooner all mink farms have gone, the better.
  Mr. Morley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is Labour policy that mink farming should be ended at the earliest opportunity.
  When we talk about the welfare implications of mink, I wonder why the Minister ignores the findings of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in relation to mink keeping. He quoted from the council's findings, but the House may be interested to hear what the council had to say about the keeping of mink and fox:
  "Mink and fox have been bred in captivity for only about 50 to 60 generations and the Council is particularly concerned about the keeping of what are essentially wild animals in small barren cages. The Council believes that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria which it has identified for protecting the welfare of farm animals. The current cages used for fur farming do not appear to provide appropriate comfort or shelter, and do not allow the animals freedom to display most normal standards of behaviour."
  That is a powerful indictment of fur farming from the Government's own advisory body.
  With regard to the time scale for domestication, mink have been kept for about 60 years in terms of intensive farming. Dogs have been kept for 12,000 years and chickens for 4,000 years. However, even after 4,000 years, chickens have not adapted to intensive, battery conditions.
  802
  Solitary animals such as mink, which are clearly much wilder than chickens, are expected to be reared in such conditions.
  We recognise the need for registration and the need for the order. However, the argument is that, even as they stand, the regulations have not been effective. I understand that not one mink farmer has been prosecuted under the regulations. It comes as no surprise to the House to learn that there has been only one report of escaped mink since 1987, as it is not in the interests of mink farmers to admit that mink have been escaping. There is an analogy in that respect with trout farms. The Minister will be aware of current court proceedings instigated by anglers over the difficulty in getting trout farms to admit that rainbow trout have escaped into rivers. It is hardly surprising that mink farmers do not admit that there have been escapes.
  There are two basic arguments against the keeping of mink and Arctic fox and they are on conservation and welfare grounds. On conservation grounds, we have already established that the effect of escaped mink on wild mammals and bird species has been disastrous. In certain parts of the country, water voles have been completely wiped out by feral mink.
  Mink farms also result in diseases such as aleution disease and distemper which can be transmitted to other animals, notably otters. When mink escape and settle into a suitable habitat, they can establish themselves and live in reasonable harmony with the existing ecology. However, if escapes continue to occur, the escaped mink displace the feral population, with potentially disastrous consequences, and attack domestic stock.
  It is clear that, as long as mink farms are allowed to continue in this country, escapes will continue. I have seen the photographs of Swalesmoor farm near Halifax, which have been mentioned. Those photographs clearly show mink running loose within the farm. A number of people who live adjacent to the farm confirmed on numerous occasions that mink had been running loose in the area and attacking farm stock. The photographs show that the fur farm in question is in a poor state and undoubtedly is a miserable place in which to rear any animal of this type. A shed with more than 4,000 mink in it had not been inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for three to four years, whch demonstrates that the Mink Keeping Order in its present form is not necessarily enforced effectively.
  That brings me to the welfare considerations of keeping mink. Wild mink are solitary animals. In the wild they normally have a territory which is two and a half miles long. In farm factory conditions they are forced to live in unnatural intensive conditions in cages which are 24 in long, 15 in wide and 12 in high. Respected animal behaviourists such as Dr. Desmond Morris have said that:
  "Because of the intensive keeping of animals like mink, the result of this degree of confinement is that animals exhibit all the typical reactions of wild creatures to a restrictive and deprived environment. They perform stereotyped patterns of movement and various forms of self-mutilation. These are clear signs that the captive animals are under stress."
  That is from a report entitled "Mink Factories", which was published jointly by Lynx and Compassion in World Farming. I could also refer to the Farm Animal Welfare Council and its findings on the keeping of animals.
  I argue that the keeping of mink in their present form is in breach of articles 3 and 4 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. There are five main principles in terms of keeping animals:

  803
  first, freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition; secondly, appropriate comfort and shelter; thirdly, the prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury, disease or infection; fourthly, freedom from fear; and, fifthly, freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour. I argue that the second, third and fourth criteria are not met in the keeping of mink.
  As articles 3 and 4 of the European convention deal with the natural behaviour of animals and seek to ensure that they are given the opportunity to display natural behaviour, it is clear that mink farming breaches that convention. Given that overwhelming evidence, how can the Minister justify the continuation of fur farming in the United Kingdom? The Minister referred to the Council of Europe report. It is clear that if that report evolves into a directive, it is unlikely that the mink farms in this country will be able to meet such a directive.
  I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 143 which calls for an end to the keeping of mink. That motion has been signed by 226 hon. Members, including many of the Minister's hon. Friends who are sitting behind him. Fur farming is reviled by the public, as the mail bags of many hon. Members show only too clearly.
  I also draw the attention of the Minister to a recent survey which found that 78 per cent. of the public opposed fur farming. Fur is clearly out of fashion, because people rightly reject the infliction of such stress and misery on animals for the sake of the vanity of a few people. That view is reflected in both the decline in the number of farms—to which the Minister referred—and the decline in the price of pelts.
  Given the decline in the number of mink farms in Britain, is it not time to act? Is it not time that the Minister took the opportunity not merely to cut out the consultation on the option of banning mink farms but to introduce an order that bans them?
  While mink farms exist, they must be properly regulated. The Opposition have tabled an amendment calling for the phasing out of mink farms at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate that our procedures did not allow such an amendment to be selected for debate. We argue that the order does not go far enough. Unless we receive assurances from the Minister tonight, first, that there will be a moratorium on all new fur farms, in the sense that the Minister will refuse to issue new licences, and, secondly, that existing fur farms will be phased out as soon as possible, we shall have no option but to vote against the order, not because we do not want fur farms to be regulated but because we want an order that will bring about the end of the vile and inhumane exploitation of animals for no real or useful purpose.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. William Ross: As the House will have noted, the order applies only to Great Britain. However, we have feral mink in Northern Ireland and, like other hon. Members, I have an interest in the matter.
  I listened with care and attention to what was said by both Front-Bench spokesmen. The debate deals with not only the welfare of farmed mink but the problems associated with escaped feral mink. The Minister talked about a natural feral population. By definition, feral populations cannot be natural. They are the descendants of escaped mink. As the Minister said, they pose a threat of substantial damage.
  804
  It is clear from the experience of those who live in the countryside that escaped mink have caused considerable damage in all parts of the United Kingdom and even further afield. We should not allow that to continue because the feral mink do not simply die out; they breed and live in the wild. Their numbers are constantly increasing. In some areas they have increased to the point at which the population is stable. The population can be stable only at the expense of the local indigenous species, which we in Britain want to maintain.
  No one has mentioned so far that the order is descended from the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. As the Minister will be aware, that Act covered only musk rats. All the other animals covered by subsequent orders were added at a later stage. The list of animals covered by orders is long. The 1932 Act was followed by the Northern Ireland legislation in 1933. The list is long and all the species included are species that none of us would love.
  The list includes the grey squirrel, which was included by an order in 1937. Non-indigenous rabbits were included in 1954. The Coypus (Prohibition of Keeping) Order was introduced in 1987. I am sure that the Minister will have looked at that order in preparing for the debate and will have noted that it placed an absolute prohibition on the keeping of those animals in Great Britain. That species has vanished from the countryside—or at least I hope that it has disappeared because it caused considerable damage in the east of England. The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 has lasted for the past five years.
  The 1932 Act referred to non-indigenous animals. But I suggest that we should not close our minds to the wider difficulties of bringing other non-indigenous creatures within the scope of the legislation. The intention of the original Act was to license the keeping and to prohibit the importation of the animals. The Act also laid down another duty, which at least shows that our predecessors had some concern about the animals—a duty to destroy escapees—or it took refuge in the old parliamentary device of saying "may" take the necessary steps to destroy them. Those steps could be taken directly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or by the council in whose areas the escapees existed but, as far as I can tell, that has never been done.
  From what the Minister and other hon. Members have said, it is plain that there are many escapees, which have bred, and that there is a stable population of these vicious and destructive animals.
  One of the Minister's comments should not be quickly forgotten. He said that mink were easy to catch and I have also been told that by one of my relatives who lives in Canada, and has caught them with a trap line. They are obviously easy to catch there too. If that is so, why have no consistent and assiduous efforts been made to wipe out what is, by all accounts, a destructive animal? It should not be all that difficult—all that it would take is time, effort and a bit of money. It would pay rich dividends and, for the good of all our indigenous species, it is long overdue.
  Many other species have been introduced into this country and released, and are having an unfortunate effect on indigenous species, for example, catfish, rainbow trout and farmed salmon. As the Minister will recall, fish were dealt with fairly comprehensively throughout the United Kingdom by changes in the law some years ago. Those changes were wise, very welcome and have done some good.

  805
  I am sure that, like myself, the Minister reads country magazines that deal with wildfowling and shooting. If he has not noticed it with his own eyes I am sure that his officials will have drawn to his attention the problem caused by various types of geese, which are hybridising and will cause the most enormous damage and difficulties. That problem should be dealt with.
  Furthermore, I believe that there are populations of escaped kangaroos and wallabies in England. Those are not the sort of animals that one would normally think of as traditional in the English countryside.
  A large number of different species of deer have been running loose in this country for a long time—some are useful and others are not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the subject. Will he return to mink, please?
  Mr. Ross: I have just come to the end of my list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful that you allowed me to go so far. If you had allowed me a moment more, I would have said that some unwelcome plants have also been introduced, but I shall leave those.
  Some animals are more acceptable than others and we can live with some of them. I suppose that we can live with almost any strange creatures, provided that they are present only in small numbers, but that is not true of mink or other destructive animals, which should be destroyed. We can do that only by killing each and every one. That might not sit happily with some folk, but it is a fact of life that if we do not destroy them, they will do further immense damage to our indigenous species and will interbreed with closely related creatures—God knows where it will end.
  All such animals are a factor in changing the ecology of our countryside. I hope that the Minister will consider my comments and will start down the road of eliminating them.
  I intervened in the Minister's speech because I thought that, in the middle of the hubbub, he had missed something. He was reading out the technical specifications for burying wire underground to keep in mink and I believe that he said that the wire should be bent outwards. If that is the specification, and if it is not a misprint in his brief, then the specification is wrong. If it is bent outwards, the mink will simply dig out under it, whereas if it is bent inwards, the mink will not know, if it digs out, how to get back. I think I see the Minister nodding in assent, so I assume that there was a mistake in his brief. If there was not a mistake, I hope he will change the regulations.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I know that the Minister has some sympathy for the arguments that are being advanced about the welfare of mink, but we had expected him to be rather more robust with his officials in terms of the assurances that he blandly read out from his brief—assurances that do not seem to match the reality of the situation.
  The Minister said in reply to me that there had been one case of an escaped mink. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked in an excellent speech, in which he covered most of the salient
  806
  points, how can one expect mink farmers to report that some of their mink have escaped? It is like a speeding motorist going to the police and turning himself in. It might be an act of Christian charity and show respect for the law, but it would also be stupid in view of the penalties that would follow. So it is not satisfactory for the Minister to say that, because there has been only one reported case, that must mean that no other mink have escaped.
  There was a litany of eye-witness evidence surrounding the case that Lynx presented in court regarding Swalesmoor. Many people in the vicinity of Swalesmoor testified to the number of times that they had had to send for the farmer from Swalesmoor to recapture mink that had escaped from his farm. It is true that they are easy to catch. That is because they have been half domesticated and their spirit is broken by the appalling conditions they must endure at Swalesmoor and, I am sure, at other fur farms.
  It is nonsense for the Minister to say that mink have not escaped from Swalesmoor and elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that one was seen in the middle of Halifax and had to be captured by environmental health officers from the local authority. Was that the one escaped mink that ended up on the records of the Minister's Department? My hon. Friends and I found the Minister's speech insufferably complacent in many respects and we expect him, after this debate, to toughen up his approach to his officials and his attitude towards the practices of some of the appalling mink farms.
  The Minister said we were not debating the issue of mink and animal welfare. I do not see how one can avoid that issue, given the conditions at some mink farms. I find fur farming obnoxious and unacceptable and I regard the wearing of mink fur—other than by natural mink in the wild—to be naff and vulgar. People who go round wearing mink have more money than taste.
  The Minister mentioned the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which drew attention to the fact that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox—including white Arctic fox—do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria for protecting the welfare of farm animals. That should lead one logically to the conclusion that we should phase out all mink farms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe pointed out, the original consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure——
  Mr. Soames rose——
  Mr. Banks: Let me finish the sentence, Minister. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is active and eager, but I would appreciate being allowed to complete the sentence.
  One would have thought, under the circumstances, that the phasing out of mink fur farms would have been natural, and it has not been explained why the option of phasing out was included in the consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure but was somehow excluded from the 1992 consultation process.
  Mr. Soames: It may be convenient for the hon. Gentleman to know that neither the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food nor any of its agencies has ever received any report of escaped mink from Swalesmoor.
  Mr. Banks: I find that incredible.
  Mrs. Mahon: My local Evening Courier contains photographs of a mink that escaped and was caught in the

  807
  centre of town. Most of the population was shocked and horrified because the environmental health officers clubbed it to death. There have been numerous such reports. Many complaints have been made to the local council and I am pretty sure that they have been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mr. Banks: I am beginning to feel sorry for the Minister because his civil servants must be either incredibly stupid or entirely negligent. It is apparent from all the evidence in the locality of Swalesmoor that numerous escapes have been reported. The Minister should stop simply taking assurances from his civil servants and start investigating in greater detail precisely what is going on on the ground.
  It is difficult for us to accept the fact that the order excludes the Isle of Wight, which has a licensed mink farm, although it is currently free of feral mink. Lynx, the organisation which has done so much to draw the attention of the public and the House to the conditions within those appalling hell holes of factory farms, has made it clear that the Isle of Wight mink farm should be closed. It is in the immediate vicinity of Newtown harbour nature reserve, which is a site of special scientific interest and an internationally important site for nesting and migrating birds. Should any of those mink escape, the damage that they would do to that reserve is incalculable. It is amazing that the Minister is prepared to run such a risk in respect of the Isle of Wight.
  Opposition Members have made it clear that there have obviously been escapes in the past, otherwise there would not be feral mink populations in various parts of the country. Minks have been escaping since 1929. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) who said that the minks should be killed. I must admit that I feel a bit sorry for them, but, because of the destruction that they wreak on other species, a humane trapping programme should be adopted and the mink humanely destroyed.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my hon. Friend comment on the Prime Minister's crusade against bureaucracy and red tape? Does not that mean that mink farms should be prohibited rather than licensed? With licensing, either there will be no inspection, in which case there will be much cruelty and the hell holes to which my hon. Friend referred, or the Minister is way out of line with the Prime Minister's requirements, because much costly bureaucracy will be involved.
  Mr. Banks: The Minister is trying to suggest that my hon. Friend's facial hair is a false mink beard. I assure him that it is natural and flourishing feral hair on Harry's face.
  808
  My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I would not mind if that bureaucracy was working. The Minister has given us all the assurances which his civil servants wrote. He must test the issue for himself, not simply take assurances that clearly do not match reality. I have shown him the enormous album of photographs from Swalesmoor. If these are the result of annual inspections by his civil servants and inspectors, he should sack the damn lot of them because they are clearly taking their money under false pretences.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, the inspectors managed for a number of years to miss a shed containing thousands of mink. It takes a very myopic inspector to miss a shed of such dimensions that it can enclose thousands of mink, but the Minister's inspectors managed to do so. What action did the Minister take against those civil servants who are clearly not doing their job? The pictures that I have show the sort of conditions that inspectors are prepared to accept when licensing the farms. The conditions are disgusting and unacceptable, and the Minister must change them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the mink is a wild, semi-aquatic animal, whose normal territory is anything up to 2·5 miles. The animals we are talking about are kept in rows in wire mesh cages that are 24 in long, 15 in high and 12 in wide. Mink normally avoid each other's company except at mating times because they protect their own territories. Given the amount of stress that they are under, it is no wonder that they go in for self-mutilation—they are bored. They are placed in conditions that are so unnatural they are totally obscene and unacceptable.
  The order should be about the welfare of those animals. The state in which they are kept is unacceptable in this day and age. Why are we keeping them in such appalling conditions? Is it so that prune-like little old women and flashy, spivvy types can wear mink coats? There is no justification for that. Individuals' vanity is paid for by obscene suffering by animals.
  We shall vote against the order, but the Minister must start checking the facts. I know him to be a reasonable person, and when he has checked the facts for himself, he might share some of the anger that I feel tonight. Then he will go into his Ministry and start tearing up his speech in front of the civil servants who wrote it, and tell them to get out and start earning their money.
  Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Front Bench teams have said that, with the leave of the House, they wish to begin the wind-up speeches a t 11.30 pm.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: It is clear that there is widespread concern throughout the House and in many parts of the country about the continuation of mink farming, not least in the agriculture community, where it is regarded as a potential time bomb that is ticking away in the rural parts of the country.
  As has been mentioned, at the time of the 1987 order, there was full consultation on a three-way choice: continuation or renewal, lapse of the order, or total prohibition. The agriculture community expected to be consulted on the options in the run-up to the current order, but they were not. They should have been.
  Why did the Ministry remove the obligation to report the presence of mink at large in 1987? That obligation existed before 1987, but has not existed for the past five years and the system has been greatly weakened as a consequence. That is why so many hon. Members tonight have expressed their concern at the Swalesmoor case and others. Surely the Minister should give us an explanation as to why that case was not referred to his Ministry, rather than the other way round.
  Mrs. Mahon: The Swalesmoor case has been referred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have done so at least twice. I have received unsatisfactory replies stating that nothing can be done about it. There must be a file on the Swalesmoor case gathering dust somewhere within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution, as she has made my argument for me. Under the present system it is left to the breeders to report an escape. With great respect to the hon. Lady, it should not be left to a Member of Parliament to draw the problem to the attention of the Ministry—that is not our function; I was not trained for that job when I was elected to the House. At present, the breeders are the only people obliged to report an escape. Who has ever heard of a poacher going to see the gamekeeper and saying, "Gamekeeper, sir, I want to report that I have been poaching this evening." That is ridiculous.
  Mr. William Ross: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the relevant Act, he will see that there is a legal obligation on the owners to report escapes.
  Mr. Tyler: Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, if owners do that they will put themselves outside the law. So the law is making an ass of itself. It is important to clarify it as soon as possible.
  Are we really to believe that as of 9 June this year there had been no reports of escapes from registered farms in the previous 12 months? That is patently untrue. The feral population is increasing; that cannot be happening by natural breeding alone.
  The Minister gave the impression that the annual inspections in these fur prison camps were an effective parade and that it was possible to check on precise numbers—and that any animal escaping would be immediately identified, like some prisoner of war. That is absurd: the system is not working.
  The escapees from this artificial captivity are especially dangerous to the fragile ecological balance in the natural habitat. Wildlife is suffering. Feral mink can cause chaos and ecological disaster.
  810
  If there were some sudden change in the tactics of the Animal Liberation Front and it let loose large numbers of captive animals into the wild, that would cause great damage.
  We greatly regret that the House is not being given the chance to vote on the amendment. At the same time, we should acknowledge that eradication of mink in the wild is probably now impossible. It is important not to treat the mink as a scapegoat for all the problems of the delicate balance in the wild. English Nature says:
  "The mink is now too well established in Britain for eradication to be an option, so conservation action should focus on creating those conditions which best enable vulnerable prey to cope with mink predation in the future."
  That means that we will have to be even more careful about allowing this activity to continue. We should work steadily on a planned programme of the run-down and eventual prohibition of all mink farming. The massive increase in such farming which still might occur would be extremely dangerous, and any more escapes to the wild would cause great damage.
  I was interested to hear the Minister say that mink are very easy to catch. I understand that a great many different techniques are used to catch them. I am not sure which one the Minister recommends as easy, but since a large number of mink in some parts of the country are still doing great damage, the Minister should concentrate his attention on advancing the parallel development of improved methods of eradication—at the same time as running down and prohibiting the farms.
  Both the Council of Europe and the Farm Animal Welfare Council have pointed the way: their expert advice is available to all Members, many of whom support it. Tonight the Minister has a responsibility to assure the House that he will ensure that this trade is stopped and the problems with which it is connected are removed.
  11.23 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: The large number of signatures appended to the relevant early-day motion shows that the strength of feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is shared by Members of all parties. The aim of most of our constituents is the elimination of fur farming.
  I would have hoped that we might vote on the amendment tonight. That is not possible, but it is the reason I and others are speaking. To vote against the order would be a disaster. If by some mischance it was defeated, it would not lead to the abolition of controlled mink farming in this country; it would mean that mink farming could proceed without any control whatever. Farms would be able to be set up without the restrictions and controls that the Minister described. Competition would put out of business immediately those who were attempting to conform to the order. The result of that would certainly not be the humane slaughter and disposal of the present stock of mink, but escape to the wild would be facilitated as the cheapest possible option.
  I want to see an end to fur farming in this country. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to give us an assurance about that tonight, but until that happy day comes we need some control of these animals and the order must therefore be supported.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I shall certainly speak briefly so as to let other hon. Members in. My interest arises only because of the reference to my constituency in the order. I do not criticise the Minister for flippancy, but things were said that require the record to be straightened.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the point that there is no such thing as a natural mink population and, therefore, the Minister was unintentionally misleading in suggesting that there was. The parallel between Lewis and Harris, and Arran in my constituency, is precise in that both have mink populations because there were farms in those islands 20 to 30 years ago when people were crazy enough to open those farms in agricultural communities and then to allow those creatures to escape. We have lived with these problems ever since. I do not think that in the real world anyone will open a mink farm on Arran; there are ways in which it would be blocked if anyone made such a ludicrous proposal.
  However, I gather from the Minister's remarks that exclusion from or inclusion in this order is a reflection of the steps taken to eradicate the existing problem. That is what I want to set straight.
  The Minister said that mink are easy creatures to catch. I did not know about that, but I am prepared to take the word of hon. Members here who know a great deal about the subject. If that is the case, it is surely unforgivable that local groups in these communities and crofters and farmers have been suffering the problems for years without the little bit of support and expertise necessary to get rid of the problem once and for all.
  On Arran for many years it was impossible for people to keep hens because of the mink population. I know that that has also been the case in the Western Isles. There the problem spread. The mink were swimming from Harris across to North Uist and establishing a presence in a different group of islands where there had been no mink farming.
  I shall end now so that others may speak. Surely if a little bit of money and a little bit of expertise are needed, on the basis of this debate that should be forthcoming. I shall certainly be raising the possibility with Scottish Natural Heritage on behalf of Arran and any other communities that continue to labour under this unfortunate and unnecessary affliction.
  11.28 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I am very concerned about the fact that nothing seems to be done about destroying the mink that are in the wild. Nobody has mentioned that in my part of the country some lunatics broke into a farm and released all the mink into the wild and ever since we have had a problem in north Staffordshire and the surrounding area. I have written to the National Rivers Authority which said that it had always been the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I wrote to the Minister and he said that it was entirely at the discretion of individual landowners or occupiers to decide whether they wished to control mink. Nobody is taking responsibility. Mink roam for at least a mile when they are breeding and can move at least 30 miles after the breeding season is over.
  812
  In north Staffordshire and the surrounding areas, there are reports of the destruction of wildlife. Despite what some people say, mink are not often seen. However, people do see fish killed by a bite through the backbone, between the head and the dorsal fin; and mammals and birds killed by a bite in the neck—usually near the base of the skull. In the case of a fresh kill, sometimes it is possible to see punctures about 8 mm apart, made by the mink's canine teeth.
  Those are nasty, vicious and destructive creatures. I want to know who will take responsibility for getting rid of them before they destroy all our wildlife.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Hon. Members have already commented about sordid stalags, and I want the Minister to make it clear that Britain can provide standards higher than those recommended in the Council of Europe report. It would be extremely useful if we did so at this stage, since a number of member states permit cruel and barbaric practices. We want to see their standards raised, and it could be helpful if we could point to higher standards in Britain.
  The Minister referred also to security. I believe that there have been no prosecutions for any fault or failing under the previous arrangements. Will the Minister make it clear to the remaining fur farmers that standards will be properly supervised, and that there will be no hesitation in bringing prosecutions should faults of the kind described to the House occur? There can be no excuse for the sort of cases to which reference has been made.
  I hope that in the short time that remains before we can see an end to the wearing of furs produced in such odious circumstances the Government will ensure the standards are a great deal higher than they have been over the past 30 years.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. Morley: I hope that the Minister has noted that not one hon. Member who has spoken during this short debate supported the keeping of mink or the Minister's claim that the order will be effective in preventing the escaping of mink.
  We know that mink have escaped in every area where there have been mink farms. They have been established as a breeding species in the wild since 1957, and escaped mink are found around every mink farm, or the site of every former mink farm.
  I accept that there is a legal obligation on mink farm owners to report escapes, but in reality not only are they reluctant to do so for obvious reasons—they will face prosecution—but when there are escapes, because there is a feral population in the wild, the mink farm owners invariably say that the mink are feral mink and not from their own farms.
  That is certainly what happened in Halifax. The farmers did not report the matter to MAFF. When the local population see the mink, they understandably complain directly to the farm. That accounts for the lack of official complaints—and to suggest that that means that there have been no escapes is disingenuous.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will explain, as I asked him to do at the start, why the option to consult on the banning of mink was denied during the consultation period. I hope that he will also explain why it was that,

  813
  although the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage was accepted, that of English Nature was not, in the case of the Isle of Wight. I hope that it has nothing to do with the fact that there are no grouse moors on the Isle of Wight.
  Will the Minister give an assurance that the state veterinary service will inspect every existing mink farm annually, as recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and that the service will be able to do that despite the Government cutbacks that it has suffered?
  I hope that the Minister will acknowledge an argument that has been clearly made in the debate: that fur farming in this country does not meet either welfare standards recommended by the Government's own advisers or the recommendations of European committees. I hope that he will also acknowledge that 226 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion calling for an end to this type of intensive farming.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), expressed concern about voting against the order. I will give an assurance if, by any chance, the order is defeated tonight. If the Government will come back to the House with an order that includes an immediate moratorium on the keeping of mink—there is not a single reason why that could not be done tonight, because we are not talking about compensation to existing farms or about any great difficulties—or if the Minister will give the House an assurance that from now on no further licences will be issued to mink or fox farms, we will support the Government. He can do that. There is no financial or legal difficulty about it. If the Minister would bring forward an order that included both that and the phasing out of the keeping of fur animals in farms of this kind, the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in getting that order through as quickly as possible.
  I want it put on the record that we shall vote against the order only if we do not get the assurance that this sort of fur farming will be phased out. If we vote against the order, it will not be because we do not want to see strong regulation, but because we want to see both regulation and the ending of this farming, which is odious, unnecessary and just part of a luxury trade. It fulfils no useful purpose in terms of economic employment in this country or of the welfare of the animals concerned. There is an opportunity tonight for the Minister to give an assurance that, at long last, something will be done about this matter and standards will be set that other European countries will follow.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. Soames: I will try to confine myself to points that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen tonight, as they would expect.
  I start with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who spoke with a good deal of knowledge and experience on this matter, and particularly raised the question of the Isle of Wight, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) also raised. They asked why mink keeping is not banned on the Isle of Wight. The answer is that there is a mink farm currently in operation on the Isle of Wight. It was there prior to the last review of the mink-keeping arrangements
  814
  and the conditions of its licence are especially stringent to prevent escapes. No escapes have been reported, so there is no justification for banning mink-keeping on the island.
  At the same time, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe made a perfectly valid point about why English Nature recommended that mink farming be banned on the Isle of Wight. It is true that it did recommend that it should be banned, but that was because it was under the false impression that there were no farms currently in operation on the island. That is the definitive reason why they were not banned.
  The hon. Gentleman then went on to ask for a ban and managed to drag in a bit of good solid class warfare about people wearing mink coats, and all the rest of it, but perhaps I can just deal with the sensible point that he made about the Farm Animal Welfare Council.
  In a statement made in April 1989, the Farm Animal Welfare Council—as I have already said, a body to whose views the Ministry of Agriculture and Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance—expressed its disapproval of fur farming, and many hon. Members, I am sure, share that view. However, it did not recommend that the practice be stopped.
  At about this time, the Council of Europe was working on its welfare recommendation, which was adopted a year later. We expect that recommendation to be used as the basis for a Community standard. The Government's policy regarding the welfare of fur animals is that we will press for the highest standards to be adopted on a Communitywide basis.
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement recommended research into housing and behavioural requirements of the mink and fox. It recommended that pelting sheds be sited away from enclosures to prevent distress caused by the release of scent during pelting, and that the state veterinary service should monitor fur farms on a regular basis. Several hon. Members felt that the state veterinary service should inspect every year. I have taken that on board, and will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister and others to see what steps can be taken.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe called for a moratorium on new mink farms. Under our present regime we might encounter some legal difficulties, on the ground that it would be unreasonable to refuse a licence to a new farm that could meet the same requirements as existing farms. On the basis of the mink's destructive habits, I must say that a ban on mink keeping is not justified. The security arrangements are adequate in preventing escapes, so that is not a relevant argument.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made a knowledgeable and robust speech, as would be expected of someone who actually understands a little about the countryside. He spoke at length, and with knowledge, of the feral mink: his angling interests have ensured that he is kept well informed—and he knows that I share his enthusiasm for that. It is true that mink are easy to catch, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to accompany me one day I shall show him how to do it. He is right: it requires both time and effort, as well as some expertise. I am not aware—and neither is my Department—of the existence of feral kangaroos and wallabies in this country, although I have no doubt that the suggestion will comfort those who drive home late at night having drunk too much.
  The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made a passionate and knowledgeable speech about a subject on

  815
  which he plainly feels strongly. He mentioned sightings of escaped mink, as have many other Opposition Members. There is no point in their banging on at me; none of those sightings, save one, has been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture. We are unable to act unless members of the public make a report to us. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) citing a report in an evening paper; that is no good to us. We need sightings to be reported to the regional service centres so that we can take the necessary action.
  It is quite untrue to say that we are insufferably complacent. We regard this as an extremely serious matter, and we acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed by many of our citizens. It is in our interests to ensure that a disagreeable business is conducted honourably and properly. I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West shortly to discuss the situation at Swalesmoor, and to examine at greater length the photographs that he has already shown me. I apologise for standing him up today.
  The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the sighting of escaped farm mink. Reports of sightings have been made by individuals and organisations, and have been investigated, but they have failed to confirm the origin of the mink, and to highlight any deficiency in the security of mink farms that needs to be addressed. It is extremely difficult for the lay person to distinguish between wild and farmed mink—as it is to distinguish between a weasel and a stoat: as the House will know, a weasel is weasily identified, but a stoat is stoatally different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it is rather a good joke, actually.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) mentioned eradication. The Department mounted an eradication campaign; it cost about £20,000 a year, was operated for five years and was ultimately found to be entirely unrealistic. We take the question of the capture of wild mink very seriously, but, at the end of the day, it is up to individual landowners to ensure that their land is free of mink.
  I wholly endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about the folly of voting against the order: that would only ensure that a large population of mink were released into the wild, which would be extremely unsatisfactory.
  I shall be happy to arrange for a discussion between the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and Scottish Natural Heritage. If he wishes to come and discuss it with me, I shall be happy to oblige. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has shown great interest in the matter: again, it comes down to individual landowners——
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business ):—
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 188.

  Division No. 98]

  [11.45 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Alexander, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Ancram, Michael

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  816

  Baldry, Tony

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gorst, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Booth, Hartley

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hague, William

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Bowis, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Harris, David

  Bright, Graham

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butcher, John

  Hendry, Charles

  Butler, Peter

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Butterfill, John

  Horam, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Carrington, Matthew

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

  Carttiss, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Cash, William

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Chaplin, Mrs Judith

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Congdon, David

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Conway, Derek

  Key, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Couchman, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Cran, James

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knox, David

  Day, Stephen

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Devlin, Tim

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Legg, Barry

  Dover, Den

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan

  Lidington, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Lord, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Luff, Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  MacKay, Andrew

  Elletson, Harold

  Maclean, David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Madel, David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Malone, Gerald

  Evennett, David

  Marland, Paul

  Faber, David

  Marlow, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Merchant, Piers

  Forman, Nigel

  Milligan, Stephen

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mills, Iain

  Forth, Eric

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Freeman, Roger

  Needham, Richard

  French, Douglas

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Gill, Christopher

  Norris, Steve

  817

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Streeter, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sweeney, Walter

  Page, Richard

  Sykes, John

  Paice, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Pawsey, James

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thomason, Roy

  Pickles, Eric

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

  Richards, Rod

  Tredinnick, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trimble, David

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Walden, George

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Waller, Gary

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Ward, John

  Sackville, Tom

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Watts, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Shersby, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Sims, Roger

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wood, Timothy

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Sproat, Iain

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Stephen, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. James Arbuthnot and Mr. Tim Boswell.

  Stewart, Allan

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ainger, Nick

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allen, Graham

  Cousins, Jim

  Alton, David

  Cox, Tom

  Ashton, Joe

  Cryer, Bob

  Austin-Walker, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Darling, Alistair

  Barron, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

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

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Denham, John

  Benton, Joe

  Dixon, Don

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Dowd, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Blunkett, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Eastham, Ken

  Bradley, Keith

  Enright, Derek

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Byers, Stephen

  Fatchett, Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cann, Jamie

  Fraser, John

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clapham, Michael

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  George, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Coffey, Ann

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Cohen, Harry

  Godsiff, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Graham, Thomas

  818

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morley, Elliot

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mudie, George

  Gunnell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Mike

  Murphy, Paul

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heppell, John

  Olner, William

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Parry, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pope, Greg

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hutton, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ingram, Adam

  Redmond, Martin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jamieson, David

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jowell, Tessa

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Short, Clare

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Simpson, Alan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Leighton, Ron

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Soley, Clive

  Lewis, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Livingstone, Ken

  Spellar, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Stevenson, George

  McAllion, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Tipping, Paddy

  McKelvey, William

  Turner, Dennis

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  McMaster, Gordon

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  McWilliam, John

  Watson, Mike

  Madden, Max

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mahon, Alice

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wilson, Brian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Winnick, David

  Maxton, John

  Wise, Audrey

  Meale, Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Michael, Alun

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Milburn, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr Jack Thompson.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Mink keeping Order 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

  PETITIONS

    Disabled Persons
    11.55 pm
    Mr. Bill Olner: I beg to ask leave to present a petition which reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.

    819
    The Humble Petition of the citizens of Nuneaton showeth: That disabled people must have the right to the same equality of opportunity in all aspects of their daily life as non-disabled people;
    that people who are disabled or perceived to be disabled continually have to face widespread unjustifiable discrimination; and
    that legislation is necessary to outlaw this unjustifiable discrimination.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to outlaw this discrimination against disabled people as soon as possible.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
    I sincerely hope that the sense of feeling expressed in the 239-signature petition against the discrimination of disabled people will be fully taken into account when my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) introduces his private Member's Bill.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Water Services, Scotland
    11.56 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I rise to present a petition that has been signed by more than 30,000 people in the Inverclyde district. It expresses their deep disquiet and serious concern about the threat to the ownership and management of the water services in Scotland.
    The petition was given to me in the Provost's room in the municipal buildings in Greenock in the presence of Liberal, Conservative and Labour councillors. In the traditional way, it expresses their deep concern and it states:
    The Humble Petition of people of Inverclyde Sheweth, That we, the undersigned, do not consent to and further entirely disapprove of any proposal that would lead to the privatisation of Scottish water.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House communicate our disapproval to the Secretary of State for Scotland and reject any proposed legislation to privatise Scottish water.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Bypass (East Cleveland)
    11.58 pm
    Mr. Michael Bates: I beg leave to present to the House a petition signed by 1,500 of my constituents calling for a bypass of the towns of East Cleveland, Skelton, and Brotton. The petition was collected by Mr. L. J. Hill, of 11 Foster street, who leads the Brotton residents association.
    The popular call for the bypass has been running for 15 years and I have pleasure in presenting the petition which reads:
    To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Assembled.
    The Humble Petition of the people of Brotton in East Cleveland Sheweth.
    That owing to the level of traffic and the need for economic development in East Cleveland a bypass is urgently needed.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Your Honourable House act to urge the Government to act to construct a bypass of Skelton and Brotton in East Cleveland.
    And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Traffic (Residential Areas)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
  12 midnight
  Mrs. Judith Chaplin: We have just heard a petition for a bypass, and I wish to raise a problem that has arisen after a bypass has been built. I welcome the opportunity to raise the problem in the House.
  We all want to reduce the congestion on our roads. The Confederation of Business Industry constantly points out the enormous damage that congested roads cause to industry and business. We need to have traffic moving freely around the country and between the industrial areas and ports of this country.
  Every time a new road is built, or a road is increased in width, the people who live nearby are affected. Sometimes those people can be compensated financially. At other times they will have insulation through grants from the highway authority. When new roads are built, there will be screens, banking, trees and all manner of methods to reduce the nuisance that new roads cause to those who live near them.
  The problem arises because the measures apply only when there are new roads or when additional carriageways are added to existing roads. There must be some alteration to the location, the width or the level of the carriageway. The public can be compensated only if the increased traffic cannot reasonably be foreseen. Therefore, when it is simply an increase in traffic, none of the compensatory measures apply, but even if the existing roads have the same level of noise as a new road, compensation would be justified.
  That exact problem has arisen on a road in my constituency. The A34 goes from the north to the south of the constituency. In 1966 a bypass was built around the village of East Ilsley. The residents welcomed the bypass because it brought relief to the village. The village has narrow streets, and the villagers were delighted that the heavy traffic was removed from its centre.
  Since that time, the traffic travelling along the A34 bypass beside the village has increased enormously. It has increased especially since the A34 was named as one of the Euroroutes in 1975. I know that the Government do not recognise Euroroutes and do not wish to do all the signing that would be necessary for them; one accepts that that is a sensible decision. However, there is no doubt that the naming of the A34 as a Euroroute means that lorries are directed to use such routes.
  Furthermore, there has been a tremendous step change recently because the A34 has become the main link between the south coast ports and the midlands. The A34 also links with the extension of the M40, so it is an excellent way of getting from the south coast of England to the midlands. That extension has enormously increased the traffic on the A34. It has not simply meant that the number of vehicles going by has increased greatly; the tonnage of the vehicles has also increased. Many large lorries now pass along the A34.
  The Department of Transport recognises the importance of the A34. I hope that the Newbury bypass will be included in the Department's plans shortly. The Minister should take this opportunity to reassure me that he recognises the enormous importance of the A34 to this area. At present the road beside Newbury is heavily used.

  821
  Indeed, there are always long queues on it. On the days when there are races at Newbury racecourse the traffic virtually comes to a halt. It can take literally hours to get from the M4 to Newbury. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees that it is vital that nothing stops the bypass being built as soon as possible.
  The Department recognises the importance of the road because the junction of the A34 with the M4 is to be altered so that the A34 goes straight through and there is no roundabout stopping the flow of traffic. The altered junction will be near another village in my constituency, Chieveley. As the route will be changed, the residents will receive the full protection that can be given to those who live near new roads. But those who live slightly further up the road feel, not unnaturally, that they are being unfairly treated in this case.
  We all recognise that the road will be busy. The inevitable consequence of the present level of traffic on the road is that the noise in the village has increased immensely. I understand from the useful booklet published by the Department of the Environment about insulation against traffic noise that the highway authority normally compensates people living near new roads or where roads have been extended if the noise is above 68 decibels, taking an average over a certain period. When measures were taken for the houses nearest to the road in East Ilsley, measurements of 73 and 78 decibels were recorded—well above that which would normally qualify for compensation if the road was new.
  I was in the village at 10 o'clock on Sunday morning. The noise was substantial even then—a time which is the most peaceful of the week and the day. Obviously, on a normal working day the noise would be substantially higher.
  In other Government Departments we are doing so much to protect the environment. We endlessly introduce legislation to reduce noise for people who live near the source of many types of noise. Yet the people living by the A34 are unprotected. Another booklet entitled "Bothered by noise?" tells people how to complain about noises such as horns of cars or reversing alarms of lorries, all of which are controlled.
  A consultative document has been published about sources of noise such as clay pigeon shooting and war games and the number of days on which such activities may be pursued in an area. People recognise that noise is a genuine nuisance and that it destroys the environment. Therefore, the Government have a duty to do something about it. People in the village in my constituency do not suffer from intermittent noise on some days of the year: they suffer from continuous noise throughout the year from the heavy traffic on the road.
  I know that if I suggest that people should receive compensation for the increased noise or that the Department should do something to ameliorate the noise, the immediate response will be that the cost is too high. I will be told that if the Department accepted that increased traffic could lead to compensation, it would set a precedent which would cause difficulties in other areas. However, that is not true, because an objective measure could be used above which compensation would be paid.
  For example, the Government could say that compensation would be paid if the road was a Euroroute.
  822
  Or an objective level of the number of vehicles travelling along the road, the tonnage of the vehicles or the level of noise could be set above which compensation could be paid. Several objective measures could be used above which either compensation could be paid or help could be given with insulation or other measures. One could state that above those levels the highway authority should provide grants to insulate houses that are most affected. Of course, that would mean legislation and I am realistic enough to know that that is unlikely in the immediate future. However, the Department should show that it is determined to lessen the impact, which has been substantial because of the change in the way in which the road is used.
  An earth bank is not possible because of the siting of the road and the village, but I understand that the Department is considering other measures. It has issued guidance on the way in which barriers are made. Acoustic fences could be used, and I understand that it is experimenting with pervious macadam, which lessens the noise.
  I urge the Minister to reconsider the problem caused by the road as it passes the village, and to find out whether anything can be done to lessen its impact. Work will be done on the road when the junction is altered and when the Newbury bypass is built. I hope that at the same time he will consider whether it is possible to take measures to improve the lives of the people in the village. It is a shame for a charming village and the lives of its inhabitants to be destroyed because of constant noise.
  12.10 am
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle): It is a pleasure for me to answer this debate, even at this late hour, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mrs. Chaplin) on raising this important subject. I do not want to embarrass her, but since she came to the House she has often come to me with the problems of her constituency, which she pursues with great force and tenacity. I respect her efforts on behalf of her constituents.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that traffic has increased continually during the past few years. That is the result of growing economic activity, of people's desire to have cars and of development decisions. It also reflects our belief that people should have choice in their means of travel. It is certainly true that more than 90 per cent. of passenger journeys and more than 90 per cent. of overland freight trips are by road and so whatever we do to improve to rail transport—we are anxious to move more goods on to rail—we would still need a substantial road programme. All our predictions show that growth will continue. The White Paper, "Roads for Prosperity", predicts an increase in total traffic of between 83 per cent. and 142 per cent. by the year 2025 compared with 1988.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that we shall continue to face the problem. We believe that the trend in growth will be faster for inter-urban traffic than for traffic on urban roads. It is significant that, although trunk roads—the major roads across the country—form little more than 4 per cent. of the total road mileage in Great Britain, they carry 31 per cent. of all traffic, including 54 per cent. of heavy goods vehicle traffic.
  Like my hon. Friend, I am anxious that we should do everything possible to reduce congestion because it is bad

  823
  for the economy and for the environment—it leads to increased air pollution, for example. We are determined to do everything possible to relieve congestion and to protect the environment.
  My hon. Friend was mostly concerned about noise, but because air pollution is important for communities near roads, it is worth recording that we are making substantial progress in restraining such pollution.
  Tight new emission standards for cars and lorries are coming in over the next few years, and from the beginning of 1993 most new cars will need catalytic converters. They should reduce harmful emissions by about 80 per cent. The MOT emissions check was introduced for cars in November 1991, and since 1 September there has been a metered smoke test in the annual test for heavy diesels. A similar test for light vans and diesel cars will be included for the first time in the MOT test from 1 January next. So, as my hon. Friend will see, we are doing much to combat pollution.
  Another effective way of dealing with congestion and helping communities is by a substantial bypass programme. If we can build bypasses, we remove traffic from town centres and villages. That is of huge benefit to those communities. Under our roads programme, we have completed about 400 improvement schemes since 1979, including more than 150 bypasses. This year we expect to complete another 32 schemes, of which 11 will be bypasses. So a substantial number of roads are bypasses.
  My hon. Friend referred to her wish for a Newbury bypass. I also share that wish. I hope that in the coming year we shall be able to make good progress with that scheme, and I urge her to keep in close contact with me about it. We know how hard pressed that community is and we want to relieve Newbury of traffic.
  I wish to go in some detail into the provisions for compensation because my hon. Friend argued a close brief and mentioned precisely some of the mitigation measures and the compensation we have paid. It is worth reviewing those measures. An important aspect of the entry of a scheme into the roads programme is that it brings into play the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973. In those circumstances, when, as a highway authority, we are acting as a developer in providing a new road or significantly altering an existing one, the Act imposes statutory obligations and gives us powers which enable us to provide traffic noise mitigation measures, and to pay compensation for depreciation in the value of properties arising from physical factors, including noise intrusion emanating from a new or altered road.
  Under the Act, where a new road is first opened to public traffic or where a new carriageway is added to an existing road, the highway authority is required to offer insulation to occupiers of eligible properties if the noise level on a facade of the property rises above a specified level.
  My hon. Friend explained in some detail the levels of noise that must be reached, and I shall not restate those, although it must be said that the levels are clearly thought out, that we apply them in a scientific way and that we do whatever we can to mitigate noise. Sometimes we do not provide insulation, for example, if we believe that a noise barrier would he more effective. Since coming to my present post, I have been struck by the nuisance that noise creates. I have already dealt with several debates on the
  824
  subject, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are in no way complacent about the problem of noise. We are determined to do all we can to reduce it.
  The question of noise from different forms of road surface is particularly difficult. The perception is that the noise from concrete surfaces is higher than that from black-top. Because that perception is clear, a substantial review was followed by my announcement on 28 July of a three-pronged attack on the source of noise from road surfaces.
  The first development will mean that motorways with a heavy traffic load and trunk roads carrying more than 75,000 vehicles a day will generally be constructed with black-top rather than concrete. We shall consider roads carrying less than that volume scheme by scheme to achieve the best result.
  The second and most exciting development will be that, in urban and other noise-sensitive areas, porous asphalt will be used where conditions are suitable and where the benefits outweigh the higher cost. I hope to make considerable progress in the next few months with that new material.
  Thirdly, we are continuing our research and next year we shall include a trial on a scheme in Derbyshire of a new concrete called "whisper concrete", which has been developed successfully in some European countries. We want to see how it does here. So we are not complacent and will try to make new roads quieter.
  My hon. Friend specifically spoke of the hard-pressed community of East Ilsley. I am sorry that none of those measures will help that community and I shall seek to explain why, but first I shall put the A34 in context. It is a strategic route between the industrial west midlands and the south coast ports which has been progressively developed to a high standard. From the Oxford area northwards, the route comprises the M40 extension that was opened early last year. From Winchester southwards, linking the M27, it is the M3, the last section of which is now being built. Between Oxford and Winchester, the majority of the A34 will have been improved under a series of schemes to which the noise mitigation provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 have been applied wherever relevant. That includes the East Ilsley-Chilton improvement, the remaining A34 schemes still in preparation, the Newbury bypass and the A34-M4 junction 13, which is the Chieveley scheme. All those will be treated in accordance with the Act.
  As my hon. Friend explained, the main exception is the East Ilsley bypass itself, which was completed a couple of years before the 1969 cut-off date to which the retrospective provisions of the Act apply.
  The traffic flow on the A34 in the East Ilsley area is in the order of 35,000 vehicles a day, which is appropriate for the standard of road. Therefore, we do not believe that there is excessive traffic on that road at present. Although it has increased and can be expected to increase further, the A34 is no different from many other roads throughout the country.
  On noise mitigation, the key factor is that the length of A34 in question is an existing road for which we have no improvement proposals. As my hon. Friend said, if that road were improved, it would be a different matter and provisions would apply to the road's improvement or redesign.
  My hon. Friend mentioned Euroroutes. The A34 was designated as a Euroroute some time ago in the European

  825
  agreement on main international traffic arteries, which the United Kingdom has not yet ratified. My hon. Friend will understand that designation has little significance in the context of noise intrusion and confers no entitlement to special noise measures or treatment.
  The legislation does not take into account traffic levels more than 15 years after the opening of a road or review the noise mitigation measures provided as a consequence of traffic growth that is greater than that estimated when a scheme was prepared. We do not provide any relief from roads such as the East Ilsley bypass, opened before 17 October 1969. The obligations placed on us relate only to where a new road is provided or an existing one significantly altered.
  I have every sympathy with those who have suffered an intensification of traffic noise as a result of increased traffic volumes. However, in the absence of legislation requiring us to restrict noise intrusion to prescribed levels along existing unaltered roads, we could not justify the substantial costs involved in meeting, on an equitable basis, the many requests that we receive for protection.
  I know that that response will not be of much comfort to my hon. Friend, who wants to change the position. However, I must emphasise that the costs of doing so would be substantial. We believe that, on trunk roads alone, the cost would be more than £2 billion throughout
  826
  the country. That would mean the postponement of many bypasses that my right hon. and hon. Friends desire to be built around their communities, the delaying of many much-needed schemes to reduce congestion, and the imposition of an intolerable burden on our road building programme. I do not believe that the Government would be justified in delaying so many road schemes and bypasses.
  I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. Friend further this evening. I admire the tenacity with which she presses her case. I am always willing to consider such matters again to see whether there is any way in which I can help the community that is exceptionally hard pressed. However, I have to do so without opening the flood gates. If my hon. Friend would like to continue the discussion with me and my Department, she is more than welcome to do so, and I look forward to many future discussions with her.
  I have described the growth in traffic and what we are doing to reduce noise in new schemes, such as the new techniques, the noise barriers and the new surfaces. I have described the detailed legislation and tried to explain why, in this case, I cannot bend to her arguments, although I sympathise with them. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important topic to the attention of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the number of civil service jobs likely to be lost as a consequence of market testing.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Market testing is not about abolishing jobs but about testing whether services performed in-house or by the private sector offer better value for money.

  Until the outcome of individual market testing exercises is known, it is not possible to say whether the question of job losses will arise.

  Where, in the past, contracting out has offered best value for money, in most cases staff have been taken on by the contractor, or they have been redeployed by their Department or absorbed through natural wastage.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many civil servants are currently employed by his Department(a) in London and (b) elsewhere.

  Mr. Brooke
  The total number of permanent staff in the Department of National Heritage is 862. This figure includes 352 in the Historic Royal Palaces Agency—HRPA. All are based in London.

  The total number of casual staff in the Department is 73. This figure includes 69 in the HRPA. All are based in London.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact of a national lottery on employment in the pools industry.

  Mr. Brooke
  Employment levels in the pools industry are dependent on many factors and are a matter for the pools companies. Estimates of the effects of the national lottery on the level of pools turnover are subject to a series of hypotheses.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed national lottery on employment in Scotland.

  Mr. Brooke
  It is too early to say precisely what jobs will be created by the introduction of the national lottery and where they will be located.

  Longford Hall
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 43, what actions were taken by his Department or its predecessors following receipt of letters dated 7 December 1991,20 May 1992 and 17 August 1992 regarding disrepair of Longford hall, from the hon. Member for Stretford; what consideration was given to an inspection by English Heritage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer to the answers I gave on 16 November 1992,Official Report, column 43. Longford hall is in the first instance the responsibility of its owners, Trafford metropolitan borough council: I understand that consideration is still being given to possible new uses for the building.

  St. Anne's Hotel, Buxton
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking to ensure that the necessary structural repairs are carried out to the former St. Anne's hotel, the Crescent, Buxton.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has today authorised the service on the owners, Capitalrise Ltd, of a notice under section 48 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 specifying the works which he considers reasonably necessary for the proper preservation of the building and notifying them that, if these are not carried out within three months, he may begin proceedings for the compulsory purchase of the building under section 47.

  Royal Palaces
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the publicly owned works of art in royal palaces which have not been on public exhibition.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: A list of works of art in the royal collection held in trust for the nation which have not been on public exhibition is not available. However, a large proportion of works of art from the royal collection are on permanent public display at Hampton Court palace, Kensington palace, the state apartments at Windsor castle, Osborne house, the palace of Holyroodhouse, Kew palace, the banqueting hall and the national gallery. Other paintings are on periodic display at the Queen's gallery in Buckingham palace and the Queen's private residence at Balmoral and Sandringham. In addition, about 500 paintings have been loaned to exhibitions in the United Kingdom and abroad over the last five years.

  Theatres Restoration Fund
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are the guidelines for the theatres restoration fund and for application eligibility; and what conditions are imposed as to the age of the building on behalf of which an application is to be made.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 4 December]: The purpose, scope and eligibility criteria of the theatres restoration fund are set out in "Notes for Applicants", copies of which

  549
  I am sending to my hon. Friend and placing in the Library of the House. In essence, the criteria are that only purpose-built theatres are eligible; that they must be constituted as charitable trusts; and that they should be of architectural merit and/or that the work produced in the theatre is of artistic significance. There are no specific conditions relating to the age of a building.

  Windsor Castle
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what delay experienced by the county fire brigade in reaching the fire at Windsor castle was due to the presence of soldiers carrying out band and other ceremonial duties.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: I understand that the Royal Berkshire fire and rescue service encountered no such delay.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is given to police forces regarding identification of dog types in relation to prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office issued guidance to the police about the identification of specially controlled dogs shortly before the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 came into force in August 1991. Chief officers of police were also sent posters giving further indication of typical size and range of colouring of pit bull terriers.

  In a Home Office circular containing further advice on the 1991 Act, issued this year, the attention of the police was drawn to a list, provided by the Stafforshire Bull Terrier Breed Council, of clubs which are willing to offer advice where there is any doubt about whether a particular dog is a Staffordshire bull terrier. This is the type with which the pit bull terrier is most commonly confused.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding problems arising from the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We regularly receive representations from hon. Members, animal welfare bodies and other organisations and individuals about the 1991 Act. There is also regular contact with the enforcement authorities on various aspects of the operation of the Act. We shall continue to listen carefully to those who wish to offer constructive comments.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimate of the cost of keeping dogs in kennels during the course of appeals in relation to prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information relating to the total cost of keeping dogs in kennels pending the outcome of appeals under the 1991 Act is not collected centrally. Kennelling costs may vary around the country. However I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the cost of kennelling one dog for one day in the London area is about £8.
  550
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to date of prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; how much has been paid to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and what other organisations have received payment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the costs to the police, local authorities, the Crown prosecution service and the courts of prosecutions under the 1991 Act is not available centrally.

  The Home Office has not made any payments to the RSPCA or the SSPCA. At the time the exemption scheme was coming into effect, payments were made to the Index of Exempted Dogs, which administers the exemption scheme established under the Act, in respect of reminder letters issued by the index to the owners of specially controlled dogs who had registered with the police but who had not at that time completed the exemption process. The index also received revenue from fees collected in respect of applications made for certificates of exemption.

  Betting
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation is taking place or is planned with betting shop employees about proposals to introduce evening off-course betting.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We issued a consultation document in October 1991 inviting the views of all interested parties, including betting office employees, on whether licensed betting offices should be open in the evening and, if so, at what times. We are giving careful consideration to views received in response to that document, including those from betting office employees, and will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Drugs
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what part of Wales has the highest per capita conviction rate for drug offences in Wales;

  (2) what percentage of convictions in Wales (a) involving under-18s and (b) in total, are for drug-elated offences.

  Mr. Jack
  Information for 1991, which is provisional, is given in the tables.

  Table A

  Number of persons per 100,000 population convicted of indictable drug offences in Welsh police force areas 19911

  Police force area

  rate

  Dyfed-Powys

  43

  Gwent

  25

  North Wales

  44

  South Wales

  77

  Wales

  56

  England and Wales

  53

  1 Provisional.

  551

  Table B

  Persons convicted of indictable drug offences as a percentage of all indictable offences by age 19911—Wales

  All ages

  Aged 10 to under 18 years

  Total indictable offences

  Indictable drug offences

  Total indictable offences

  Indictable drug offences

  100

  6·1

  100

  2·1

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage increase in the amount of cocaine seized in the United Kingdom over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is contained in table 1.1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of Drugs Seizures and Offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1991", a copy of which is in the Library. The table shows that in 1981, 21 kg of cocaine was seized; in 1991 the corresponding amount was 1,078 kg, representing a proportional increase of 5,133 per cent.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much crack cocaine was seized in the United Kingdom in 1991–92.

  Mr. Jack
  There were 583 recorded seizures of the type of cocaine known as "crack" in the United Kingdom during 1991. These weighed 1.9 kg. Data for 1992 are not yet available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum number of individuals who at any one time will be detained under Immigration Act powers at Her Majesty's prison Kidlington; and when the proposed use of Her Majesty's prison Kidlington for the detention of individuals under Immigration Act powers will commence.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The use of the vacant Prison Service establishment at Campsfield house, Kidlington is one of the options being considered for additional accommodation for Immigration Act detainees. No final decision has yet been taken as to when or whether Campsfielcl house will be brought into use for this purpose.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The numbers of Home Office posts relocated during the periods specified are as follows:

  Number

  (a) in the last five years to Birmingham

  80

  Derby

  5

  Glasgow

  200

  Liverpool

  275

  Nottingham

  120

  552

  Number

  Total

  680

  (b) in the last 10 years the total above, plus to Bootle

  300

  Grand total

  980

  Figures on the proportion of these posts filled by relocating civil servants, as opposed to local recruitment, cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to grant the police further powers to help them deal with the threat of terrorism.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is essential that the police have the necessary powers to deal with terrorism and it is for this reason that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 remains in force. This and other measures are kept under review.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) 16-year-olds, (b) 15-year-olds and (c) 14-year-olds have been held in an adult prison for more than 24 hours after being convicted of (i) a section 53 offence under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 any (ii) and other offence in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not recorded centrally. The readily available data are given in the table.

  Juveniles initially received under sentence into adult prisons and remand centres in England and Wales: by age, type of sentence and type of initial reception establishment, 1989–91

  Number of persons

  Type of initial reception establishment, type of sentence and age

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Remand centre:

  S.53, C&YP Act 1933:

  14

  7

  5

  5

  15

  41

  30

  26

  16

  75

  78

  55

  Detention in a Young Offender Institution:

  14

  1

  11

  13

  15

  28

  30

  67

  16

  77

  81

  152

  Adult prison:

  S.53, C&YP Act 1933:

  14

  —

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  —

  16

  6

  1

  —

  Detention in a Young Offender Institution:

  14

  1

  2

  —

  15

  24

  17

  12

  16

  113

  85

  50

  Underground Emergency Facilities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) further to his answer of 27 November,Official Report, columns 849–50, how Her Majesty's Government will be able to dispose of the underground facilities for which he has no plans to permit use for purposes not related to wartime or other emergencies;

  (2) further to his answer of 27 November, Official Report, columns 849–50, if he will give fresh consideration to the uses to which the underground facilities might be put; and if he will provide a list of uses which Her Majesty's Government are willing to (a) permit or (b) encourage in the event of the facilities being disposed of.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not propose to use or to develop these sites for alternative purposes. The normal rules for disposal will be followed including, where necessary, first offering sites back to the current or previous owner. Other sites will he placed for sale on the open market. The use to which they are put after disposal will be a matter for whoever acquires them.

  Prison Education Service
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out his future plans for the prison education service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Prison Service has invited competitive tenders for the provision of education to inmates in prisons and young offender institutions in England and Wales, for which it is responsible, with effect from 1 April 1993. The present arrangements have to be changed because local education authorities, who currently provide education in prisons, lose most of their responsibilities for further education from that date. They will no longer be primarily responsible for a range of courses, including those leading to vocational training, GCSE and A-level courses, basic literacy courses in English, basic mathematics, English as a second language, and courses to teach independent living and communication skills. These make up the core of most education programmes in prisons.

  The Government have made clear in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice", Cm. 1647, that education is an essential part of the opportunities which must be provided in a prison. Through more detailed specification of prisoners' requirements, establishment by establishment, by competition between the public and private sector and by rigorous monitoring, the Prison Service should be better able to ensure the future education provision offers value for money and is of a consistently high quality.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the application of the acquired rights directive on his plans to privatise the prison education service.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government are not privatising the provision of education services to prison establishments in England and Wales. The purpose of competitive tendering is to stimulate new and better ways of carrying out existing tasks by inviting tenders from both the public and the private sector. The contracts will be placed with those who offer the best combination of quality and price.
  554
  On the application of the EEC acquired rights directive 77/187, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question on 1 December, at column 98, and to the reply that my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Department of Employment, gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) on 19 November, at columns 338–39. I am also placing in the Library of the House copies of guidance which, following legal advice, the Prison Service has sent to those tendering for the provision of educational services in prisons and of guidance which the Department for Education has issued on the application of the directive to staff transferring from the employment of a local education authority to a further education corporation under the provisions of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many scientific procedures on living animals have been undertaken without anaesthesia since 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is published in table 21 of the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals 1991", a copy of which is in the Library. Information for 1986 relates to animal experiments under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many scientific procedures were carried out on living animals in the first half of 1992 and for the first half of each year since 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information on the number of scientific procedures is collected only for whole years and is published in table 23 of the Command Paper "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain 1991", Cm 2023, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information for 1986 relates to animal experiments under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which was replaced on 1 January 1987 by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The 1986 Act not only encompasses work covered by the 1876 Act, but extends to some work not previously controlled.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many scientific procedures on living animals in the United Kingdom have bred animals with harmful genetic defects or transgenic animals since 1986.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information requested is contained in table 15 of the Command Paper "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Great Britain" for each year since 1987, and table 6 or 7 of the HMSO publication "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals, Northern Ireland", copies of which are in the Library.

  Information with respect to transgenic animals is not available before 1990. Also, from 1990 inclusive the method of counting the production of animals with harmful genetic defects changed, so it is not possible to make a direct comparison of data from before and after that date.

  Information for the year 1986 is not available since the procedures described were not regulated by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, which was then in force.
  555
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A number of revisions to the 1986 Act will be made during 1993.

  The Government announced on 3 December, at column 336, in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), that we have accepted the majority view of the Animal Procedures Committee that the common octopus or Octopus vulgaris should be brought within the controls of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  As reported in the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1991, schedule 1 to the Act, which sets out those methods of humane killing which do not require project or personal licence authority, is currently being revised.

  We shall also be adding quail—coturnix coturnix—to schedule 2 to the Act, which lists those animals for use in scientific procedures which may be obtained only from designated breeding or supplying establishments. This is in order to ensure that the United Kingdom complies fully with the requirements of EC directive 86/609.

  Motor Cycle Noise
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prosecutions have taken place in each year since 1983 for breaches of noise limits by motor cycles;

  (2) how many prosecutions have taken place of suppliers of open exhaust systems for motor cycles in each year since 1983.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  New Prison
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a list of all of the sites which have been considered for the site of a new prison in the north-west region of England since 1984.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not readily available in the form requested, but, where there would be no breach of commercial confidentiality in doing so, I will write to the hon. Member with details of Merseyside sites considered prior to the purchase of land at Fazakerley.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill on the right of visitors, short-term and prospective students and their dependants.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between 22 October and 7 December the Home Office has received representations about clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill from approximately 25 organisations and individuals.

  Terrorist Attacks
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take urgent steps to facilitate the setting up of a fund to insure victims of terrorist attacks; and if he will make a statement.
  556
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The criminal injuries compensation scheme provides compensation for personal injuries suffered by the innocent victims of violent crime. So far as commercial property is concerned, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering representations from the insurance industry and other interested parties.

  Racial Violence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation whereby racial violence would be a specific criminal offence, along the lines recommended by the Commission for Racial Equality.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The recommendations in the Commission for Racial Equality's second review of the Race Relations Act have wide-ranging implications for a number of Government Departments. A response to the idea of a new offence of racial violence will be made as part of the Government's response to the CRE review as a whole.

  Young Offenders (Self-harm)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many acts of deliberate self-harm by young offenders were recorded in each year since 1986; and how many young offenders died as a result in each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 November 1992]: Information about the incidence of deliberate self-harm prior to 1991 is not available. The numbers of prisoners aged under 21 who deliberately harmed themselves in 1991 was 1,156. Figures for 1992 are not yet available.

  The number of prisoners under the age of 21 who died as the result of an act of deliberate self-harm in each year since 1986 is shown in the table.

  Deaths by prisoners aged under 21 years resulting from an act of deliberate self-harm 1986–1992 (to 19 November)

  Year

  Deaths

  1986

  5

  1987

  7

  1988

  9

  1989

  11

  1990

  9

  1991

  5

  1992

  7

  Directive 89/816/EURATOM
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what steps have been taken by his Department to implement the European Community directive 89/816/EURATOM.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Regulations which implement European Community directive 89/618/EURATOM were laid before the House on 8 December 1992. These regulations entitled "Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1993" are expected to come into force on 1 January 1993.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Morbidity and Mortality Levels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information the Overseas Development Administration collects on the levels of morbidity and mortality in countries to which Her Majesty's Government send aid moneys or provide support technology and assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration uses data produced and analysed by developing country Governments, the UN and its agencies, other international organisations and academic bodies. The ODA itself does not collect morbidity and mortality data but has provided technical and financial assistance to both countries and UN agencies to support the collection and dissemination of such data.

  Tanzania
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 November,Official Report, columns 553–54, when the Tanga Port rehabilitation project in Tanzania began; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Six contractors have been prequalified for the civil works at Tanga Port. Tender documents are now being finalised. A contract for the rehabilitation of four quayside cranes will be negotiated with the original manufacturer. It is planned that project implementation will start in the earlier part of 1993.

  Gabon
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from Friends of the Earth over the World bank-funded forestry and environment project for Gabon; and what reply has been sent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A representative of Friends of the Earth raised concerns about the forestry and environment project in Gabon with senior officials of the ODA in September. Through a subsequent exchange of correspondence, Friends of the Earth has been advised that World bank staff have been asked to respond to the issues raised in a memorandum prepared by some nongovernmental organisations.

  Malawi
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Friends of the Earth to the United Kingdom's executive director at the World bank on the subject of the recently approved Malawi Power loan V; and what reply has been sent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware of any representations made by Friends of the Earth in connection with the Malawi Power V project which was approved by the World bank's executive board in June 1992.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the visit to Bosnia by the permanent secretary of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Copies of the visit report by Mr. Tim Lankester, Permanent Secretary of the ODA, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to publish, on a monthly basis, details of those structural adjustment loans which are being considered by the World bank and which are listed in the World bank's operational review.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I have made arrangements for a copy of the World bank's operational summary of proposed projects to be made available in the Libraries of the House. This document contains information on all loans, including those related to structural adjustment, which are being considered by the bank.

EDUCATION

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of children in the United Kingdom remain in full-time education beyond the age of 16 years; and if he will tabulate the United Kingdom figures alongside those for other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Forman
  The available information is given in the table.

  Participation rates in full-time education and training1 of 16 and 16 to 18 year olds. 19882

  Percentages

  Country

  16 year olds

  16–18 year olds

  Australia4

  76

  52

  Belgium2

  92

  82

  Canada5

  100

  77

  Denmark

  90

  79

  France

  82

  73

  Germany (Federal Republic)6

  71

  49

  Italy2

  65

  55

  Japan7

  93

  84

  Netherlands6

  93

  77

  Spain8

  68

  58

  Sweden

  84

  73

  United Kingdom9

  1988

  50

  35

  1989

  53

  36

  USA2

  95

  75

  1 Includes apprenticeships, YTS and similar schemes.

  2 1987 for Belgium and Italy (provisional), 1989 for USA.

  3 Includes higher education for some 18 year olds.

  4 Includes an estimate for those students studying subsidised courses at non-governmental business colleges.

  5 Excludes certain part-time students, 16 per cent, at 16–18.

  6 Includes compulsory part-time education for 16 and 17 year olds in Germany and Netherlands.

  7 Includes private sector higher education and an estimate for special training and miscellaneous schools providing vocational

  559
  training

  8 Includes estimates for 18 year olds in universities.

  9 Includes estimates for those studying only in the evening and for private sector further and higher education, including training courses with employers.

  Sources: Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1992, Table BB (1992 edition draft).

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will indicate the comparable levels of literacy and numeracy for 16 to 18-year-olds in the United Kingdom and other OECD countries.

  Mr. Forman
  Information on levels of literacy and numeracy among 16 to 18-year-olds in the United Kingdom is not available centrally. However, the adult literacy and basic skills unit estimates that 5·5 million adults in England and Wales have some difficulty with reading, writing, spelling and basic mathematics. It does not, however, have a basis for making comparisons with other countries.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of gross domestic product was spent on education in the current fiscal year for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Forman
  The readily available information is as follows:

  Total Public Expenditure1 on education as a Percentage of Gross National Product (Calender Year)

  1988

  United Kingdom

  24·6

  Australia

  35·0

  Austria

  5·7

  Belgium

  44·9

  Canada

  7·1

  Denmark

  7·8

  Finland

  7·4

  France

  5·3

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  4·2

  Greece

  32·7

  Iceland

  5·4

  Ireland

  37·0

  Italy

  34·8

  Japan

  54·3

  Luxembourg

  4·6

  New Zealand

  n/a

  Netherlands

  6·8

  Norway

  7·4

  Portugal

  4·8

  Spain

  4·3

  Sweden

  6·7

  Switzerland

  4·9

  Turkey

  n/a

  United States of America

  55·3

  Sources: UNESCO Statistical Yearbook 1991.

  Education Statistics for the United Kingdom 1991.

  1 Public subsides to the private sector are included.

  2 Excludes expenditure on students at DH establishments on nursing and paramedical courses.

  3 1987 data.

  4 Ministry of Education only.

  5 Estimated. Includes some private funds, but excludes fees.

  n/a = not available.

  School Transport
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision is being made for transport for children attending grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Local education authorities have a statutory duty to provide free transport for pupils who attend grant-maintained schools for whom they consider it necessary, and the power to assist other pupils. Information on LEAs' schools transport arrangements is not collected centrally, but they must treat GM pupils no less favourably as regards transport than pupils who attend schools maintained by an LEA.

  School Catering
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what independent assessment has been made of the standards of school catering since the introduction of local authority competitive tendering.

  Mr. Forth
  We are aware of no study on the effects of compulsory competitive tendering on the standards of school catering. CCT should represent an opportunity for improving the quality of school meals as it places greater emphasis on specifying the standards which services are expected to meet. This was recognised in the report "Nutritional Guidelines for Schools" published by the Caroline Walker Trust on 24 November.

  Popular Schools
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what provision is being made to meet an increase in demand for places at schools which have demonstrated the best results in recently published league tables.

  Mr. Forth
  In distributing capital resources we already give a high priority to providing new places where demand is rising, though in doing so we also take account of any surplus places in the area.

  In addition, the powers my right hon. Friend proposes in the Education Bill will also facilitate imaginative rationalisation schemes, which will create further opportunity recognising the needs of popular schools.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what selection criteria will be set for the selection of pupils at more popular schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Admission arrangements in maintained schools are the responsibility of the governing body or local education authority, depending on the nature of the school. Admission arrangements for grant-maintained schools must be approved by the Secretary of State. The criteria established for deciding between pupils if the school is oversubscribed must be clear, reasonable and objective; and consistent with the established character of the school.

  The Department plans to consult shortly on updated guidance to schools and LEAs on admission arrangements.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the rate for the numbers of higher education in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
  561
  Mr. Forman
  The readily available figures are shown in the table.

  New entrants1 to higher education, 1988

  Country

  Participation rate2

  (percentage)

  United Kingdom3

  37

  United Kingdom3 1989

  41

  Australia4

  57

  Belgium5

  49

  Canada5'6

  59

  Denmark

  48

  France

  44

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  32

  Italy5

  27

  Japan7 (a)

  37

  (b)

  52

  Netherlands5'8

  36

  Spain5

  35

  Sweden9

  47

  United States of America10 (a)

  65

  (b)

  33

  Sources: Education Statistics for the United Kingdom, Table CC (1992 edition draft).

  1Includes full-time and part-time students entering higher education for the first time i.e. excluding postgraduate students and others already having a qualification in higher education. Not all other countries may adhere to this general definition.

  2To aid comparison and overcome the problem of the varying lengths of courses in different countries the participation rate is the percentage of all new entrants (defined above) to a derived relevant single year group. The latter is calculated by taking the total populations for the ages providing at least 70 per cent. of the new entrants and dividing by the number of ages involved. For the United Kingdom this is the population of ages 18 to 21 divided by 4. OECD recommend this procedure.

  3Excludes the private sector and students from abroad. Includes nursing and paramedical students at Health Department establishments.

  4Excludes Technical and Further Education (TAFE).

  51986 data for Canada, 1987 for Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Spain.

  6Provisional.

  7The (b) rate shown includes data for advanced special training schools (SENSHU's) which may be equivalent to sub-degree higher education.

  8Full-time only and excludes Open University.

  9Excluding one-year courses, which may be below level 5.

  10The (b) rate excludes students on two-year courses, some of which may not be equivalent to sub-degree higher education.

  Examination Results, Liverpool
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from schools in Liverpool about the recent publication of exam results.

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Further Education
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will set out by local education authority(a) the actual spending on further education and sixth-form colleges for the financial year 1991–92, (b) the planned spending on further education and sixth-form colleges for the financial year 1992–93, (c) the standard spending assessment—SSA—for further education and sixth-form colleges for the financial year 1992–93 and (d) the amount deducted from the standard spending assessment for further education and sixth-form colleges for the financial year 1993–94.
  562
  Mr. Forman
  Information about(a) is not yet available. In respect of (b), the Government have calculated for each local education authority a further education adjustment for the purposes of proposing a relevant notional amount. These proposed adjustments are set out in the table. So far as (c) is concerned, authorities' SSAs for 1992–93 do not identify an element for further education and sixth-form colleges. As for (d), there has been no deduction from 1993–94 SSAs for further education and sixth-form colleges. The 1993–94 education standard spending total from which the education component of SSAs is derived covers only those functions for which LEAs will be responsible from 1 April 1993.

  4 December 1992

  Page 1

  The further education adjustment used in calculation of provisional relevant notional amounts

  Local authority

  Provisional further education adjustment

  (£ million)

  Greater London

  City of London

  4·151

  Camden

  11·056

  Greenwich

  9·355

  Hackney

  13·172

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8·250

  Islington

  9·668

  Kensington and Chelsea

  9·167

  Lambeth

  16·146

  Lewisham

  14·894

  Southwark

  11·976

  Tower Hamlets

  12·197

  Wandsworth

  19·490

  Westminster

  10·385

  Barking and Dagenham

  6·404

  Barnet

  13·040

  Bexley

  6·330

  Brent

  22·839

  Bromley

  7·841

  Croydon

  18·535

  Ealing

  11·495

  Enfield

  13·341

  Haringey

  11·439

  Harrow

  13·652

  Havering

  10·139

  Hillingdon

  7·916

  Hounslow

  5·320

  Kingston upon Thames

  5·420

  Merton

  8·924

  Newham

  21·298

  Redbridge

  6·304

  Richmond upon Thames

  8·383

  Sutton

  4·485

  Waltham Forest

  12·858

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  11·266

  Bury

  11·460

  Manchester

  26·563

  Oldham

  15·585

  Rochdale

  10·408

  Salford

  10·872

  Stockport

  16·799

  Tameside

  3·767

  Trafford

  9·432

  Wigan

  20·491

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  4·669

  Liverpool

  19·450

  Sefton

  10·284

  St. Helens

  12·362

  Wirral

  12·989

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  9·738

  Doncaster

  11·712

  563

  Local authority

  Provisional further education adjustment

  (£ million)

  Rotherham

  12·146

  Sheffield

  23·306

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  6·067

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6·854

  North Tyneside

  7·273

  South Tyneside

  8·894

  Sunderland

  14·436

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  57·798

  Coventry

  14·501

  Dudley

  14·905

  Sandwell

  16·748

  Solihull

  9·482

  Walsall

  10·092

  Wolverhampton

  14·094

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  20·815

  Calderdale

  10·460

  Kirklees

  21·005

  Leeds

  31·971

  Wakefield

  18·657

  Shire counties

  Avon

  33·404

  Bedfordshire

  20·719

  Berkshire

  29·402

  Buckinghamshire

  23·327

  Cambridgeshire

  32·716

  Cheshire

  52·790

  Cleveland

  37·034

  Cornwall

  21·790

  Cumbria

  17·671

  Derbyshire

  41·562

  Devon

  41·651

  Dorset

  22·698

  Durham

  24·633

  East Sussex

  33·034

  Essex

  63·777

  Gloucestershire

  24·388

  Hampshire

  97·094

  Hereford and Worcester

  33·482

  Hertfordshire

  40·943

  Humberside

  41·290

  Isle of Wight

  5·003

  Kent

  54·536

  Lancashire

  78·502

  Leicestershire

  37·585

  Lincolnshire

  27·457

  Norfolk

  27·622

  Northamptonshire

  24·714

  Northumberland

  7·929

  North Yorkshire

  31·097

  Nottinghamshire

  50·874

  Oxfordshire

  22·216

  Shropshire

  25·451

  Somerset

  25·847

  Staffordshire

  51·848

  Suffolk

  24·655

  Surrey

  52·294

  Warwickshire

  25·815

  West Sussex

  31·117

  Wiltshire

  23·432

  Isles of Scilly

  0·274

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what spending per student in further education colleges was in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, in cash terms and in a real-terms index with 1979–80 as the base year.
  564
  Mr. Forman
  Expenditure per student in further education colleges for financial years 1979–80, 1989–90 and 1990–91, the latest year available, are shown in the table.

  Financial years

  1979–80

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Expenditure per student (fte)

  Cash terms (£)

  1,540

  2,780

  2,920

  Real terms index1

  100

  90

  88

  1 The real terms index has been calculated using the current Gross Domestic Product Deflators.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what part of the provision to be made available to the Further Education Funding Council is directly related to student numbers in both cash terms and as a percentage in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96; and on what assumptions this figure is calculated.

  Mr. Forman
  In order to encourage efficiency in the achievement of increased student numbers, part of the provision to be made available to the Further Education Funding Council will be directly related to actual student numbers and will be paid from a non cash-limited vote. This element of funding will be introduced in the academic year 1993–94 and will be limited initially to full-time students. The total amount to be made available in this element will be the product of the actual number of full-time students and a rate per student of £750 a year. The rate per student and the scope of funding in later years will be subject to review.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what part of the proposed expenditure total for further education in 1993–94 is assumed to be spending per student in both cash terms and in a real terms index with 1979–80 as the base year; and what are the figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Forman
  The total funding made available to the Further Education Funding Council—FEFC—in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 for recurrent expenditure is planned to be £2,550 million, £2,734 million and £2,944 million respectively. The FEFC has announced that from the 1993–94 total it intends to make available to colleges £2,507 million. On the basis of the Government's projection of 970,000 full-time equivalent students for whom provision will be made by the FEFC in 1993–94, the level of support per student would be some £2,600

  Figures for 1979–80 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education pursuant to his answer of 16 November,Official Report, column 42, what assumptions and information about the current level of fundings by local education authorities of courses for which the Further Education Funding Council will be responsible from 1993 were made on deciding the level of funds to be made available to the Further Education Funding Council in 1993–94.

  Mr. Forman
  In reaching a notional apportionment of local education authorities' spending on education in 1992–93, the Government assumed that their recurrent spending in that year on activities which from 1993–94 would be the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council would appropriately be £2,341 million. This assumption took account of the latest available
  565
  expenditure data and student, pupil, lecturer and teacher numbers. It also took account of the findings of a special survey of LEA spending on further education.

  Health Education
  Ms. Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will reconsider his decision to withdraw the 60 per cent. funding for health education co-ordinators from local education authorities from March 1993; and if he will provide information about the numbers of school children who smoke.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend's decision, which is now final, to discontinue the grant for education support and training programme for preventive health education at the end of the current financial year, was relayed to local education authorities through the Department's circular 10/92 which issued on 13 August.

  A Health Education Authority/MORI survey undertaken in 1989 of nine to 15-year-olds in England, suggested that about 200,000 young people had become regular smokers by the age of 15.

  Rudolf Steiner Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to(a) the resolution of the European Parliament on freedom of education, dated 14 March 1984, (b) the right to education in Article 1 (b) of the declaration of fundamental rights and freedoms of 12 April 1989, and (c) article 63 of the concluding document of the Vienna meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, dated 15 January 1989, in drawing up his policy on the funding of Rudolf Steiner education in Rudolf Steiner schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the various provisions referred to, but he does not consider that they require the Government to fund any particular form of independent education, including Steiner schools.

  Unemployed Students
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what specific financial incentives have been given to the Further Education Funding Council to increase participation by unemployed students in education courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forman
  The Government's expenditure plans for further education will allow for a 25 per cent. increase in student numbers, and hence a significant increase in participation, over the period 1993–94 to 1995–96. The funding for the Further Education Funding Council will allow colleges to continue the arrangements for fee remission for students such as those who are unemployed, which are currently operated by local education authorities. The council will shortly be issuing a consultative document on options for a funding method for 1994–95 onwards which will address funding issues related to widening access and meeting the needs of different client groups.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria were used in deciding which aspects of the treaty on European union to omit from the summary pamphlet "Britain in Europe".

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The pamphlet "Britain in Europe" provides a straightforward but accurate picture of the European Community and the Maastricht treaty.

  Mohammed Afzal
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 428, what reports the high commission in Islamabad has received from the Pakistan authorities concerning the progress of the investigation into the murder of Mohammed Afzal in Jaurah village, Pakistan, on 4 October.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The British high commission in Islamabad have not yet received a report from the Pakistan authorities. They are in close touch with the Pakistan police, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as we have a report.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the links which have been established to date between his Department and the Iraqi Kurdish National Assembly; and if he has any plans to place a diplomatic representative in Iraqi Kurdistan.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A delegation from the Iraqi Kurdish National Assembly is at present visiting London. They will meet my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and officials.

  We have no plans to place a diplomatic representative in northern Iraq.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to maintain the air umbrella over northern Iraq.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The air umbrella over northern Iraq plays an important role in preserving the safety and well-being of the people of northern Iraq. The decision on its renewal rests with the Turkish National Assembly. We have been in close touch with the Turkish Government about this. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed this issue with the Turkish Prime Minister during his visit to London last month.

  Sudan
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sudan Government about persecutions of non-Muslims in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made clear to the Sudanese Government our abhorrence of the systematic abuses of human rights throughout Sudan, and the importance we
  567
  attach to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of religion. We co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in Sudan, adopted on 4 December.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to date during the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Community to the Government of Greece concerning the official recognition of Macedonia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Robin O'Neill, as personal representative of the Foreign Secretary, has regularly visited Athens and Skopje. He has held talks in both capitals in an effort to find a formula which will permit recognition for Macedonia in accordance with the Lisbon declaration.

  Albania
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will inform the Albanian Government that British aid is conditional on the ending of public executions in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In deciding aid policy for individual countries, we take into account a number of factors relating to good Government, including human rights. Where improvements are needed we make our views clear to the country concerned. Our aim is to influence the government in whatever ways are most appropriate. The suspension of United Kingdom and EC aid, designed to relieve extreme hardship, would not necessarily be an effective way of improving human rights in Albania.

  Western Sahara
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the current developments in western Sahara following the visit of President Abdelaziz of Sadr.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Mr. Mohamed Abdelaziz called on a senior official at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27 November. We took this opportunity to reiterate our support for the United Nations settlement plan and the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and his special representative to overcome the problems which have delayed the holding of a referendum.

  Angola
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the United Nations on the post-election situation in Angola; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: We have been actively involved in United Nations Security Council discussions on the situation in Angola. On 30 November, the council adopted Security Council resolution 793 which extended until 31 January 1993 the role of the United Nations Angolan verification mission,
  568
  and called on the parties in Angola to observe the ceasefire and create all the conditions necessary for the completion of the peace process.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the procedure used by Argentina and Brazil in negotiating and signing agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  We welcome the safeguards agreement between the IAEA, Argentina, Brazil and the Brazilian—Argentine agency for accounting and control of nuclear materials. It has no particular implications for my Department.

  Japan
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 171, on Japan, what discussions he has had with his Japanese counterparts relating to (a) the funding of the International Atomic Energy Agency and (b) the reduction of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections in Japan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have not discussed the funding of the International Atomic Energy Agency with the Japanese. The second subject is a matter for the IAEA and the Japanese Government.

  Zangger Committee
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 November,Official Report, column 170, on the Zangger committee, what recent work has been produced by the Zangger committee; when it is next due to meet; whether it has discussed the establishment of a reporting system on the export and import of nuclear material and relevant equipment and certain non-nuclear material; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions in the Zangger committee are confidential to the parties involved. The next meeting is scheduled to take place in May 1993.

  In an effort to strengthen the international safeguards system, the United Kingdom, along with European Community partners, has recently notified the International Atomic Energy Agency that EC member states intend to provide information on transfers of ore concentrates imported or exported from the European Community and information on the items listed in annex B to IAEA INFCIRC/254/Revl/Part 1, when a licence for whose export to a country outside the European Community has been approved. These new arrangements are expected to commence in the new year.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Chancellor's Legal Expenses
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps were taken by the Treasury to satisfy themselves as to the propriety of the amount which they paid to Carter-Ruck solicitors; how the proportion to be paid by the Treasury was arrived at; what assessment was made as to whether this was the most economical way of doing the work; and whether a remuneration certificate was requested from the Law Society as to the reasonableness of the charges carried and paid for by the Treasury.

  Mr. Nelson
  The decision that the Treasury should meet that part of the Chancellor's legal costs which related to the release of a press statement on the evening of 13 April 1991 and to the subsequent handling of extensive press inquiries was taken by the then accounting officer. He was satisfied that the actions taken by the Chancellor and his solicitors were justified in order to retain full confidence in the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and its holder and to forestall or correct misleading and inaccurate press stories which would have been damaging to the Chancellor's reputation and would therefore have had a bearing on his performance of his public duties. The Treasury did not meet any of the costs incurred in evicting the Chancellor's tenant.

  Given the extensive interest generated by the press story and the high volume of inquiries which followed, the bill presented by Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners did not appear to the accounting officer to be either disproportionate or unjustified. No approach was made to the Law Society.

  VAT
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it his policy that the agreement reached at the Council of Finance Ministers on 27 July does not in any way jeopardise the right of the United Kingdom Government to maintain a zero rate of value-added tax on children's clothes and shoes;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that the current zero rate of value-added tax on children's shoes and clothes will remain a derogation which is not time-limited;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the current right to maintain a zero rate of value-added tax on children's clothes and shoes remains in force indefinitely; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  The United Kingdom's current zero rates, including those on children's clothes and shoes, are protected by the EC sixth VAT directive which can only be amended by the unanimous agreement of all member states. The Government remain committed to the retention of the right to maintain existing zero rates.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the contribution the Central Statistical Office is making towards achieving the aim of the Earth summit relating to integration of environmental factors and costs into the national accounts; and if he will make a statement.
  570
  Mr. Nelson
  In June this year, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development proposed that member states should establish integrated economic and environmental accounts, in parallel to existing national accounts, at the earliest possible date. The Central Statistical Office published an article examining the theory behind such integration, with illustrative statistics, in the November 1992 issue of "Economic Trends". Developing such integrated accounts will be a difficult task, not least because of the difficulty of putting monetary values on environmental factors.

  Housing (Capital Receipts)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow local authorities to use all their capital receipts for the provision of affordable housing.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. It is important that local authorities in England and Wales use accumulated receipts to repay debt. They may, however, spend virtually all the capital receipts they acquire between 13 November 1992 and 31 December 1993 on new capital investments. This is in addition to spending financed by any usable receipts local authorities acquired before 13 November. Local authorities in Scotland are free to use capital receipts within the overall arrangements for the control of local authority capital spending in Scotland.

  Public Sector Deficit
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing the extent to which the public sector deficit was either overfunded or underfunded over the period since 1975.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The extent to which the public sector deficit was overfunded or underfunded in each year over the period since 1975 is shown in the table:

  In-year over( + )/under ( - ) funding

  Financial year

  £ billion

  1975–76

  -4·1

  1976–77

  -0·1

  1977–78

  -3·1

  1978–79

  -0·1

  1979–80

  -1·1

  1980–81

  -1·5

  1981–82

  +3·6

  1982–83

  +1·8

  1983–84

  +4·3

  1984–85

  +4·7

  1985–86

  -0·3

  1986–87

  -0·4

  1987–88

  0·0

  1988–89

  +2·7

  1989–90

  -0·7

  1990–91

  +0·3

  1991–92

  +0·3

  Notes:

  1. From 1988–89, the funding sector consists of the overseas sector and the domestic private sector excluding banks and building societies. In earlier years, the building societies were also included in the funding sector.

  2. Figures take account of purchases of Treasury Bills by funding sector up to and including 1988–89. In subsequent years, Treasury Bills no longer count as funding.

  3. No data is available for the funding sector's holding of tax

  571
  instruments prior to 1976–77. However, the holdings were probably not material.

  4. National Savings Bank Investment Account became part of National Savings on 31 December 1980, and moved from private sector to public sector.

  5. The Trustee Savings Bank became part of the non-funding sector as from 31 December 1981, when the "banking sector" became the "monetary sector".

  6. Public Sector Borrowing Rate was redefined in March 1984 to treat public sector bank deposits as a financing item rather than as one of the determinants of the PSBR, but the effect is minimal.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cold Weather Credits
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will be replying to the letter of 21 October from the Campaign for Cold Weather Credits.

  The Prime Minister
  A reply was sent on my behalf by the Department of Social Security on 2 December 1992.

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress made towards the goals established at the World summit for children in 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government published a "Report on United Kingdom Implementation of the Goals agreed by the World Summit for Children" as a Command Paper on 24 June 1992.

ENVIRONMENT

  Tenants Charter
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to make the council tenants charter available to ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  The council tenants charter has been available in five ethnic languages since 24 November. They are Bengali, Greek, Hindi, Urdu and Vietnamese. Copies of the new translations are being sent to all local authorities in England, community groups, advice organisations and individual tenants who used the reply slip on the English language introductory leaflet to obtain an ethnic language version. For those who understand only spoken English, the council tenants charter is also available on audio-cassette.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to safeguard the future of the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board in the event that regulations detailing the introduction of certificates of technical competence in respect of waste management are not laid before 15 December.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board is an independent body whose future the Government do not control. My Department's involvement with the board is that of a client. The board was commissioned by the Department to 572
  prepare a system of certificates of technical competence for the waste industry. That work is largely complete and the Government have proposed to prescribe those certificates as evidence of technical competence for the purposes of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Final regulations will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible, with a view to bringing the system into force on 1 April 1993. The board has represented to Government the importance of early issue of the final regulations if the technical competence system is to be introduced on that date. My officials keep in close contact with the board about the timetable for implementation. Transitional arrangements will he included in the regulations to ensure the orderly introduction of the assessment of technical competence.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the draft waste management guidance note No. 26A on the surrender of licences for landfill sites; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the time taken to publish this draft guidance on the target date for implementing the new licensing scheme.

  Mr. Maclean
  Draft guidance on the surrender of site licences will be published as soon as possible. The target date for the implementation of waste management licensing remains 1 April 1993.

  Housing Associations (Empty Properties)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties owned by housing associations were empty at the latest convenient date; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available statistics, for 31 March 1992, show that there were 16,200 empty housing association owned properties in England.

  Housing associations in England have been seeking to maximise the occupation of their stock, and have reduced the proportion of empty properties from 4·2 per cent. in 1989 to 2·5 per cent. in 1992.

  Flue Gas Desulphurisation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom's commitment to meet the targets of the 1988 large combustion plant directive of the refusal by PowerGen to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation—FGD—technology to 4,000 MW of capacity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Planning consent has been granted for PowerGen to retrofit 2,000 MW of capacity at Ratcliffe and work is well underway. PowerGen's application for consent to retrofit another 2,000 MW of capacity, at Ferrybridge, is still being considered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  The United Kingdom intends to meet the reductions required by the large combustion plants directive by a range of measures, including the retrofitting of FGD, the use of alternative fuels and the construction of new, cleaner plant. My right hon. and learned Friend has the power to direct Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to require the fitting of FGD in a particular case if he considers it appropriate.

  Rough Sleeping
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the schemes and initiatives that have received or are currently receiving Government funding under the rough sleeping initiative.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today placed in the Library a list of all the voluntary organisations and housing associations funded under the Government's rough sleepers initiative in central London, showing the schemes they have provided or are currently providing.

  Household Heating
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the number of households with solid fuel heating where the residents are too infirm to heat their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Figures for the number of households with residents too infirm to heat their homes are not available. However, the 1986 English house condition survey estimated that solid fuel was the main heating fuel for 730,000 pensioner households, of which nearly a third were headed by residents aged 75 years and over.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue specific guidance for waste holders and waste regulation authorities relating to the status of ozone-depleting substances as controlled waste under section 33 (1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. Guidance on the circumstances in which ozone-depleting substances may become controlled wastes for the purposes of part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, will be included in the circular to be issued by my Department before the whole of section 33 is brought into force, which is intended to be on 1 April 1993.

  Thorne and Hatfield Moors
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for English Nature to take possession of the freehold of Thorne and Hatfield moors site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Maclean
  English Nature has been managing the vegetated areas since February this year, with assistance from Fisons. The transfer of ownership will be completed as soon as possible.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect he expects the sale of Fisons horticultural division to have on the negotiation of an agreement between the company and English Nature on the purchase of Thorne and Hatfield moors.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment English Nature has made of the extent to which damage to Thorne and Hatfield moors site of special scientific interest as a result of peat extraction has been reduced during negotiations for the purchase of the site.
  574
  Mr. Maclean
  I am advised by English Nature that the vegetated areas previously planned for peat extraction are still intact and will remain so. Water levels on the moors have been successfully raised and the prime area of the site is now in better condition than before the negotiations.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much derelict land grant has been made available for each local authority area in the last two financial years; and what level is expected to be paid for the current financial year.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows derelict land grant expenditure—grants and supplementary credits—incurred by local authorities over the last two years and the forecast for the current year.

  Derelict land grant expenditure 1990–91 to 1992–93

  Local Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Allerdale

  1,571,074

  312,648

  0

  Alnwick

  0

  350

  0

  Amber Valley

  71,415

  0

  235,000

  Ashfield

  54,773

  65,944

  24,000

  Barking

  74,166

  0

  0

  Barnsley

  1,685,189

  877,713

  1,646,964

  Barrow in Furness

  0

  3,000,000

  2,000,000

  Bath

  0

  139,755

  530,000

  Bedfordshire

  0

  29,583

  0

  Birmingham

  281,537

  893,446

  1,224,000

  Blackburn

  370,811

  374,415

  200,000

  Blackpool

  23,992

  0

  18,000

  Blyth Valley

  0

  36,100

  100,000

  Bolsover

  68,967

  33,549

  80,000

  Bolton

  493,239

  221,066

  660,000

  Boothferry

  773,560

  838,673

  140,000

  Bradford

  780,617

  494,522

  396,000

  Braintree

  7,753

  0

  0

  Breckland DC

  0

  3,156

  0

  Bristol

  84,161

  138,741

  0

  Broadland

  45,837

  0

  0

  Burnley

  47,573

  81,182

  200,000

  Bury

  156,165

  697,395

  660,000

  Calderdale

  51,104

  2,970,946

  2,000,000

  Camden

  15,000

  15,000

  0

  Cannock Chase

  280,030

  152,138

  511,000

  Caradon

  0

  0

  100,000

  Carlisle

  0

  216,043

  900,000

  Carrick

  670,113

  0

  250,000

  Cheshire

  744,142

  101,794

  500,000

  Cheshire CC

  1,070,145

  1,434,597

  1,500,000

  Chester

  0

  0

  60,000

  Chesterfield

  2,497

  864,493

  122,000

  Chichester

  43,315

  941

  0

  Chorley

  160,956

  228,034

  200,000

  Cleethorpes

  10,900

  949

  0

  Cleveland CC

  35,401

  15,463

  120,000

  Congleton

  231,624

  47,564

  100,000

  Copeland

  0

  163,190

  900,000

  Corby

  1,374,391

  1,914,953

  1,927,000

  Cornwall CC

  25,289

  288,851

  400,000

  Coventry

  0

  0

  25,000

  Darlington

  668,018

  370,164

  700,000

  Daventry

  0

  0

  50,000

  Derby

  0

  180,000

  25,000

  Derbyshire CC

  2,958,839

  2,672,151

  2,597,000

  Derbyshire Dales

  0

  16,737

  260,000

  Derwentside

  475,920

  15,000

  135,000

  Devon CC

  57,387

  94,053

  0

  Doncaster

  1,371,837

  702,420

  2,150,783

  Dudley

  3,997,461

  4,887,623

  2,780,000

  Durham CC

  980,666

  553,286

  1,500,000

  Durham City

  2,035

  10,145

  10,000

  Easington

  125,113

  149,290

  325,000

  Eden

  0

  0

  130,000

  575

  Local Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  2,185,766

  1,503,996

  1,650,000

  Enfield

  6,358

  38,843

  0

  Erewash

  308,066

  555,234

  1,000,000

  Forest of Dean

  3,204

  142,417

  0

  Gateshead

  1,303,606

  1,558,246

  1,700,000

  Gedling

  0

  124,982

  27,000

  Glanford

  2,494,436

  3,612,119

  3,000,000

  Gloucester

  3,684

  3,684

  0

  Gravesham

  0

  1,800

  0

  Greenwich

  182,044

  81,884

  0

  Grimsby

  99

  37,200

  106,383

  Halton

  1,312,617

  914,466

  1,275,000

  Hartlepool

  256,776

  11,575

  500,000

  Havering

  17,640

  0

  0

  Herts CC

  0

  15,000

  0

  Holderness

  115,612

  0

  0

  Hyndburn

  174,072

  115,890

  200,000

  Ipswich

  0

  11,812

  0

  Isle of Wight

  49,704

  0

  0

  Kent CC

  11,747

  120,728

  0

  Kerrier

  93,286

  1,728,293

  1,420,000

  Kettering

  0

  6,875

  0

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  38,856

  139,811

  62,386

  Kingswood

  1,286

  0

  0

  Kirklees

  957,389

  1,054,334

  980,000

  Knowsley

  378,728

  634,424

  650,000

  Lancashire CC

  740,240

  528,947

  300,000

  Lancaster

  203,071

  421,906

  500,000

  Langbaurgh

  251,102

  27,809

  250,000

  Leicester CC

  697,283

  367,717

  873,000

  Lichfield

  215,464

  1,000

  103,000

  Lincoln City

  1,425,107

  694,932

  334,000

  Liverpool

  1,746,514

  3,047,190

  1,450,000

  Luton

  0

  77,257

  0

  Macclesfield

  101,358

  74,661

  150,000

  Manchester

  0

  372,930

  1,200,000

  Mansfield

  249,176

  823,915

  1,168,000

  Merton

  0

  20,521

  0

  Mid Suffolk

  0

  593

  0

  Middlesbrough

  50,284

  296,874

  550,000

  North Tyneside

  773,567

  508,513

  750,000

  North West Leicester

  899,602

  5,618

  5,000

  Newark and Sherwood

  0

  0

  77,000

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  104,810

  538,561

  450,000

  Newcastle-Under-Lyme

  1,239,612

  691,486

  1,614,000

  North Yorkshire

  0

  0

  10,000

  Northumberland CC

  1,429,134

  800,706

  1,700,000

  Norwich

  126,408

  152,074

  0

  Nottingham

  12,820

  176,280

  600,000

  Nottinghamshire CC

  1,631,835

  2,638,540

  2,631,000

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  170,744

  50,554

  0

  North Cornwall

  16,596

  18,345

  20,000

  North East Derbyshire

  2,727

  43,669

  204,000

  Oldham

  724,291

  676,265

  1,250,000

  Oswestry

  0

  33,250

  33,000

  Pendle

  219,486

  0

  200,000

  Penwith

  0

  0

  60,000

  Plymouth

  55,823

  82,000

  100,000

  Portland

  30,882

  0

  0

  Portsmouth

  0

  16,814

  0

  Preston

  19,240

  436,405

  300,000

  Reading

  0

  10,279

  0

  Reigate and Banstead

  3,777

  0

  0

  Restormel

  0

  31,298

  250,000

  Ribble Valley

  575,532

  249,009

  200,000

  Richmond Upon Thames

  8,400

  0

  0

  Richmondshire

  0

  21,621

  40,000

  Rochdale

  34,444

  0

  310,000

  Rochester

  0

  39,857

  0

  Rossendale

  149,385

  120,095

  200,000

  Rotherham

  3,876,401

  4,585,974

  5,149,396

  South Lakeland

  10,350

  0

  100,000

  South Staffordshire

  6,074

  2,945

  1,000

  South Tyneside

  341,907

  297,004

  200,000

  Salford

  563,947

  820,103

  2,680,000

  Sandwell

  1,865,409

  1,023,621

  1,425,000

  Scarborough

  45,157

  0

  0

  Sedgefield

  10,169

  124,360

  160,000

  576

  Local Authority

  1990–91

  1991–92

  11992–93

  Sefton

  605,741

  408,728

  1,200,000

  Segemoor

  10,590

  0

  0

  Selby

  21,729

  2,581

  0

  Sheffield

  133,873

  635,888

  559,929

  Shrophire CC

  1,458,615

  615,850

  1,257,000

  South Cambs

  335,229

  142,039

  0

  South Ribble

  0

  41,876

  0

  St Helens

  416,148

  1,368,914

  975,000

  Staffordshire CC

  275,262

  1,387,127

  601,000

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  0

  6,000

  51,000

  Stockport

  72,448

  13,931

  500,000

  Stockton on Tees

  34,885

  155,178

  500,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  256,706

  763,752

  695,000

  Sunderland

  1,403,637

  1,593,509

  1,700,000

  Swale

  138,405

  0

  0

  South Derbyshire

  467,923

  297,485

  7,000

  Tameside

  64,487

  1,263,999

  1,200,000

  Tamworth

  0

  0

  6,000

  Teesdale

  0

  6,418

  0

  Teignbridge

  5,154

  5,354

  800

  Test Valley

  0

  8,760

  0

  Thamesdown

  455,680

  33,659

  20,000

  Thanet

  0

  12,807

  0

  Thurrock

  0

  8,177

  0

  Torbay

  7,695

  0

  8,000

  Tower Hamlets

  364,026

  1,963,775

  0

  Trafford

  7,200

  19,688

  150,000

  Vale Royal

  59,045

  134,157

  200,000

  West Lancashire

  0

  59,709

  200,000

  Wakefield

  944,341

  1,160,250

  1,498,000

  Walsall

  3,738,123

  4,222,623

  3,838,000

  Warrington

  313,164

  90,022

  200,000

  Warwickshire

  157,345

  36,760

  29,000

  Wealden

  0

  2,500

  0

  Wear Valley

  39,896

  429,818

  350,000

  Wolverhampton

  447,375

  1,676,043

  1,981,000

  Woodspring

  1,919

  1,000

  1,200

  Wrekin

  336,154

  672,755

  773,030

  West Derbyshire

  42,550

  0

  0

  West Devon

  0

  47,666

  0

  York

  0

  0

  10,000

  TOTAL

  69,127,962

  84,860,641

  89,401,841

  1 Forecast expenditure.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds he will allow derelict land grant reclamation contracts to be awarded to contractors on a negotiated basis.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Normally reclamation works supported by derelict land grant must be subject to competitive tendering. However, a negotiated contract may be accepted where site constraints make it reasonable to employ a contractor reclaiming adjacent land; or where the future occupant of the site wishes to reclaim the land himself. In either case the Department must be satisfied that the estimated costs represent value for money.

  Empty Government Properties
  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress the Government have made on establishing a task force on empty Government residential properties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I am pleased to announce the establishment of the task force on Government Departments' empty houses. Its first meeting will be on Wednesday 9 December. The task force has been established to help bring empty Government residential properties back into use, essentially to be sold, or let on
  577
  short-term leases to people in housing need. The role of the task force will be to oversee Departments' achievements of their respective targets for disposals.

  Mr. John Baker, chief executive of National Power, has been appointed as its chairman. The task force will also comprise an independent deputy chairman, Mr. Anthony Fletcher, two independent experts, Major-General Patrick Stone and Mr. David Yorke, and representatives from Government Departments with an interest in disposal of empty residential property.

  The task force will be overseen by a ministerial steering group under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. The ministerial steering group will monitor progress and give added impetus to the task force's work.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the United States of America's proposal at the Montreal protocol to phase out by 2000 the use of methyl bromide; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: In the recent Montreal protocol negotiations the United States of America proposed that the production and supply of methyl bromide be phased out by the year 2000. Methyl bromide is a wide spectrum biocide used in soil fumigation and in vital quarantine applications. The United Kingdom proposed to its EC partners that its production and consumption should be frozen at 1991 levels by 1995, and cut by 25 per cent. by the year 2000. In the event, only a

  Number of council house sales and value by region (£000)

  1989

  1990

  1991 (Provisional)

  DOE Regions

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted Value of Sales

  Value 1989 prices

  Number of sales

  Undiscounted Value of Sales

  Value 1989 Prices

  Number of Sales

  Undiscounted Value of Sales

  Value 1989 Prices

  Northern (excluding Cumbria)

  11,298

  216,495

  216,495

  9,913

  225,064

  209,073

  5,581

  147,342

  127,744

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  19,217

  412,554

  412,554

  13,425

  377,114

  350,320

  5,879

  180,504

  156,495

  East Midlands

  12,758

  375,860

  375,860

  5,467

  191,881

  178,248

  3,186

  115,086

  99,778

  Eastern

  12,875

  700,572

  700,572

  7,388

  402,114

  373,544

  5,264

  274,210

  237,737

  London Boroughs

  29,525

  1,687,263

  1,687,263

  22,758

  1,434,148

  1,332,252

  12,754

  788,502

  683,623

  South East

  20,760

  775,947

  775,947

  7,043

  398,161

  369,872

  5,211

  290,333

  251,716

  South West

  11,555

  511,789

  511,789

  5,026

  226,213

  210,141

  3,248

  145,850

  126,450

  West Midlands

  19,082

  543,366

  543,366

  12,228

  415,888

  386,339

  6,014

  219,991

  190,730

  North West (including Cumbria)

  17,924

  391,293

  391,293

  16,361

  400,305

  371,863

  8,032

  227,309

  197,075

  England

  154,994

  5,615,139

  5,615,139

  99,609

  4,070,888

  3,781,651

  55,169

  2,389,127

  2,071,349

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 1993–94 and if he will explain the basis of his calculations.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 November 1992,c. 836]: My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 12 November that the non-domestic rate multiplier for 1993–94 will rise by 3·5 per cent. from its 1992–93 level to 0·416. The distributable amount of non-domestic rates based on this poundage will be £11,559 million. This includes an Exchequer payment of £922 million into the
  578
  freeze proved acceptable to all member states. We will continue to press for a reduction in the forthcoming discussions on a new EC regulation.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those nations known by Her Majesty's Government to have ratified agreements made at the Earth summit, stating for each which agreements have been ratified; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: The Seychelles, Mauritius and China have ratified both the framework convention on climate change and the convention on biological diversity. The USA, the Marshall Islands, Zimbabwe, the Maldives and Monaco have ratified the climate change convention.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number and value of council house sales by region in each year since 1989(a) at current prices and (b) at 1989 prices.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 30 November 1992]: The information requested is given in the table. The figures exclude dwellings transferred to housing associations and other registered bodies in large-scale voluntary transfers. Such transfers accounted for some 71,000 dwellings valued at about £600 million in the period January 1989 to December 1991.

  non-domestic rates pool to compensate local authorities for the shortfall in 1992–93 and 1993–94 which would otherwise occur as a result of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992. The basis of the calculation is set out in the table.

  Calculation of distributable amount 1993–94

  £ million

  1. Income from Local Lists in 1993–94

  (a) Total Local List RV x Multiplier (£31,500 million x 0·416)

  13,104

  (b) Less Transitional decrease

  (499)

  (c) Less Reliefs on empty and partially empty properties

  (1,213)

  (d) Less Reliefs to charities

  (330)

  (e) Less Discretionary Reliefs

  (19)

  (f) Less Losses on collection

  (200)

  579

  £ million

  (g) Less Appeals in respect of previous years and other rating adjustments

  (541)

  Sub Total

  10,302

  2. Income from Central List in 1993–94

  Total Central List RV x Multiplier—and after transition—(£2,714 million x 0·416)

  1,126

  3. Income from Crown Contributions in Aid in 1993–94

  Net Crown yield (after transition)

  455

  Net Yield for 1993–94 (Items 1, 2 and 3)

  11,883

  4. Reductions to Contributions

  (a) Offset for City of London

  (25)

  (b) Allowance for local authorities' collection costs

  (66)

  Net Contributions for 1993–94 (1, 2 and 3 less 4)

  11,792

  5. Outturn Adjustments for previous years

  (a) Less adjustments for empty property relief in respect of 1992–93 and previous years

  (606)

  (b) Less other outturn adjustments in respect of 1992–93 and previous years

  (549)

  Sub total of net contributions for 1993–94 less outturn

  10,637

  6. Exchequer Contributions to compensate for reductions in revenue resulting from the provisions of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992 (the 1992 Act)

  (a) Add income foregone in 1992–93 due to revised transitional arrangements

  400

  (b) Add income foregone in 1993–94

  520

  (c) Add addition to cost of collection allowance in 1992–93 and 1993–94

  2

  Sub-total

  922

  Total NNDR Distributable Amount for 1993–94

  11,559

  Notes:

  1. Item 1(a): the estimated rateable value total represents the values of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists.

  2. Item 1(b): the adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped locally due to the revised transitional arrangements under the provisions of the 1992 Act.

  3. Item 1(e): discretionary relief granted to charities, non-profit making organisations and for other reasons.

  4. Item 1(g): net adjustments in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous years' rates settled in 1993–94.

  5. Item 2: the rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list after adjustments for appeals.

  6. Item 4(a): a preliminary estimate of the reduction in the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool on account of the local rate in the City. It is the amount which will be retained by the authority to meet its expenditure.

  7. Item 4(b): the allowance for the costs incurred by local authorities in collecting the non-domestic rates from ratepayers.

  8. Item 5(a): adjustments based on estimated mandatory reliefs for empty property in 1992–93 and earlier years not taken into account in the calculation of the Distributable Amount for 1992–93.

  9. Item 6(a) and (b): the contribution from central government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income foregone arising from the provisions of the Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992.

  10. Item 6(c): estimated additional sum for local authorities' costs of collection in 1992–93 and 1993–94 resulting from the provisions of the 1992 Act.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action is being undertaken to deal with social security fraud in England.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are determined to crack down on fraud and abuse of the benefits system. All staff are encouraged to be aware of possible fraudulent claims to benefit and of the need to safeguard public funds. Allegations of attempted fraud which appear to be well founded are investigated, and further action, including possible legal proceedings, is taken as considered appropriate.

  We are building on the excellent performance of recent years when savings made by fraud investigators in the Benefits Agency throughout Great Britain have risen strongly. In 1990–91 they saved £341 million, last year the figure rose to £427 million, and in 1992–93 the final savings are expected to top £500 million.

  In his statement to the House on 12 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that a further £10 million would be invested to help step up the fight. He also announced plans to encourage local authorities to prevent housing benefit and council tax benefit fraud. The combined efforts of the Benefits Agency and the local authorities are expected to save nearly £1 billion in each of the next three financial years.

  Order Books
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of social security order books reported lost were subsequently cashed in the latest period for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The payment of benefits by order book is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Michael Richard to Mr. David Willets, dated 7 December 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking what proportion of social security order books reported lost were subsequently cashed in the latest period for which figures are available.In the quarter ending 30 June 1992, just over 62,000 Social Security order books were recorded as lost, stolen or destroyed, which represents approximately half of one per cent. of all order books issued. Information on the number of those order books which are subsequently cashed is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Mr. Robin Archer of 51 Ranscombe road, Brixham, will know the status of his application for disability living allowance submitted in March; and what is the reason for the time taken in reaching a decision.
  581
  Mr. Scott
  The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. Michael Bichard to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 7 December 1992:
  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to the points raised in your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claim by your constituent Mr. Robin Archer of 51 Ranscombe Road, Brixham.I should explain that action on Mr. Archer's claim was completed in August 1992 and notification sent to him. A duplicate notification was sent to him on 1 December 1992.I offer my apologies to Mr. Archer for the delay in handling his claim, I have written to you separately, and in greater detail, about the case. You will be aware from my letter of 19 October 1992 to all MPs of the problems we have encountered since the successful launch of the new benefits and the positive steps taken to improve the situation.I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy will appear in the Official Report. Copies are also being placed in the Library.

  Mortgage Interest Allowance
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he intends to review the transaction charge payable by mortgage lenders as a contribution to the costs incurred by the Benefits Agency in providing direct payment to lenders of the mortgage interest allowance in income support.

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has today laid amendment regulations which will reduce the transaction charge levied under the mortgage interest direct payment scheme from £2·50 to £1 for each payment. The change takes effect from 1 April 1993. This reduction reflects the reduced costs of running the scheme, particularly the absence of the setting-up costs incurred in 1992–93, the first year of operation.

  The scheme will continue to provide protection against repossession to many people in receipt of benefit.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the costs of the research study into invalidity benefit launched in August 1991; who has been appointed to conduct the study; and on what criteria the research is based;

  Number of Operating Colleries

  Scotland

  North East

  Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Midlands and West

  Total

  1962

  117

  153

  105

  49

  245

  669

  1963

  97

  132

  102

  48

  232

  611

  1964

  87

  122

  102

  47

  218

  576

  1965

  77

  112

  100

  45

  200

  534

  1966

  67

  96

  100

  43

  177

  483

  1967

  58

  84

  92

  33

  171

  438

  1968

  47

  69

  83

  30

  147

  376

  1969

  37

  56

  76

  26

  122

  317

  1970

  32

  50

  75

  26

  116

  299

  1971

  32

  50

  72

  27

  111

  292

  1972

  32

  48

  72

  27

  110

  289

  1973

  29

  45

  70

  27

  110

  281

  1974

  24

  38

  66

  27

  104

  259

  1975

  22

  34

  65

  27

  98

  246

  1976

  21

  32

  65

  27

  96

  241

  582
  (2) on what date he expects completion of the research study into invalidity benefit which commenced in August 1991; and when he intents to publish the results already received.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 19 October at column 171 and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 27 October at column 632.

  Pensions
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to provide that persons who have opted out of employers' pension schemes should be entitled to receive financial compensation in lieu of pension enhancements offered to fellow employees to have not opted out, as part of a redundancy package.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no plans to do so.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the coalfields producing coal in 1962; and if he will list for each year since 1962 and the current year to date, for each area, the number of mines, the tonnage of coal produced and the number of miners together with(a) the number of mines closed, (b) the number of miners who lost their jobs, (c) the number made compulsorily redundant and (d) the percentage level of unemployment among adult male workers for the relevant employment districts.

  Mr. Eggar
  British Coal has reorganised its group structure several times since 1962. The tables show the number of operating collieries, the tonnage of saleable output of coal, and the number of men on colliery books for each year since 1962 for British Coal's current operating groups.

  There have been no compulsory redundancies since 1962. Information on unemployment rates is available from the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. I regret that the other information requested cannot readily be provided.
  583

  Scotland

  North East

  Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Midlands and West

  Total

  1977

  20

  31

  66

  27

  94

  238

  1978

  19

  30

  66

  27

  89

  231

  1979

  16

  28

  64

  27

  88

  223

  1980

  16

  27

  63

  27

  86

  219

  1981

  15

  24

  62

  26

  84

  211

  1982

  14

  22

  57

  25

  82

  200

  1983

  13

  18

  56

  25

  79

  191

  1984

  9

  16

  53

  25

  67

  170

  1985

  9

  15

  53

  25

  67

  169

  1986

  9

  10

  40

  22

  52

  133

  1987

  6

  8

  36

  20

  40

  110

  1988

  4

  7

  33

  17

  33

  94

  1989

  2

  7

  32

  16

  29

  86

  1990

  1

  7

  29

  15

  21

  73

  1991

  1

  7

  26

  15

  16

  65

  1992

  1

  5

  20

  12

  12

  50

  Saleable Output (m. tons/tonnes)

  Scotland

  North East

  Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Midlands and West

  Total

  Tons

  1962

  17·5

  34·7

  42·2

  31·0

  62·2

  187·6

  1963

  17·1

  34·0

  42·6

  31·2

  63·6

  188·5

  1964

  16·5

  32·5

  43·1

  31·3

  63·8

  187·2

  1965

  15·5

  31·2

  43·5

  31·1

  62·4

  183·7

  1966

  14·9

  29·7

  41·2

  29·6

  58·7

  174·1

  1967

  14·4

  27·2

  38·9

  23·2

  60·9

  164·6

  1968

  13·7

  26·1

  40·2

  22·8

  59·9

  162·7

  1969

  12·6

  23·2

  40·1

  22·8

  54·3

  153·0

  1970

  11·1

  20·5

  35·9

  22·9

  49·4

  139·8

  1971

  11·2

  18·9

  34·8

  22·7

  45·7

  133·3

  1972

  10·4

  15·5

  29·6

  18·0

  35·7

  109·2

  1973

  11·1

  17·6

  36·1

  21·7

  40·5

  127·0

  1974

  8·8

  13·5

  27·4

  16·9

  30·5

  97·1

  1975

  10·0

  14·6

  32·3

  20·5

  37·6

  115·0

  1976

  9·7

  14·4

  31·4

  20·2

  36·9

  112·6

  1977

  9·0

  12·9

  30·7

  19·4

  34·7

  106·7

  1978

  8·3

  12·6

  30·4

  19·7

  33·6

  104·6

  Tonnes

  1979

  8·1

  12·9

  30·1

  19·6

  34·7

  105·4

  1980

  8·1

  14·1

  31·4

  20·6

  35·1

  109·3

  1981

  7·8

  14·2

  31·6

  20·9

  35·8

  110·3

  1982

  7·3

  13·5

  31·3

  20·9

  35·9

  108·9

  1983

  6·7

  12·5

  31·0

  20·7

  34·0

  104·9

  1984

  5·3

  11·0

  26·4

  18·6

  28·8

  90·1

  1985

  0·3

  0·4

  0·6

  14·8

  11·6

  27·7

  1986

  4·3

  9·6

  26·8

  18·7

  29·0

  88·4

  1987

  3·4

  10·2

  27·3

  18·1

  29·0

  88·0

  1988

  2·6

  10·3

  26·2

  17·6

  25·7

  82·4

  1989

  1·9

  10·3

  29·4

  17·2

  26·2

  85·0

  1990

  2·0

  10·3

  25·0

  16·8

  21·5

  75·6

  1991

  2·2

  9·0

  25·0

  16·9

  19·2

  72·3

  1992

  2·2

  7·5

  28·0

  17·3

  16·0

  71·0

  Men on Books (at year end)

  (Thousands)

  Year

  Scotland

  North East

  Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Midlands and West

  Total

  1962

  58·8

  112·4

  113·9

  58·5

  192·6

  536·2

  1963

  57·4

  107·3

  113·9

  58·6

  195·3

  532·5

  1964

  52·9

  99·7

  110·5

  56·7

  185·5

  505·3

  1965

  49·6

  93·5

  106·0

  54·5

  173·7

  477·3

  1966

  44·9

  83·7

  100·2

  51·2

  156·2

  436·2

  1967

  41·9

  75·5

  96·1

  40·4

  155·8

  409·7

  1968

  36·0

  64·7

  88·3

  38·4

  137·4

  364·8

  1969

  31·5

  54·5

  79·6

  35·6

  117·5

  318·7

  1970

  30·1

  48·6

  75·3

  34·8

  106·9

  295·7

  1971

  30·1

  48·1

  72·6

  35·4

  100·2

  286·4

  1972

  28·4

  46·4

  70·0

  34·4

  94·8

  274·0

  1973

  26·7

  42·7

  68·6

  34·0

  91·6

  263·6

  584 585

  Year

  Scotland

  North East

  Yorkshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Midlands and West

  Total

  1974

  24·3

  38·2

  64·4

  32·0

  83·6

  242·5

  1975

  24·8

  37·2

  67·3

  33·3

  86·2

  248·8

  1976

  23·6

  35·8

  66·6

  33·3

  84·4

  243·7

  1977

  22·9

  34·9

  67·5

  33·6

  83·2

  242·1

  1978

  21·9

  35·0

  66·5

  33·9

  82·0

  239·3

  1979

  21·0

  33·8

  64·8

  33·6

  79·2

  232·4

  1980

  21·0

  33·4

  65·6

  34·5

  78·7

  233·2

  1981

  19·8

  32·0

  63·3

  33·6

  76·1

  224·8

  1982

  17·4

  29·0

  60·7

  33·0

  72·7

  212·8

  1983

  16·5

  26·4

  59·3

  32·0

  68·5

  202·7

  1984

  13·1

  22·9

  53·9

  29·2

  62·0

  181·1

  1985

  11·3

  21·9

  52·0

  27·5

  58·7

  171·4

  1986

  7·7

  17·9

  38·1

  26·2

  48·6

  138·5

  1987

  4·5

  14·4

  33·2

  20·6

  37·2

  109·9

  1988

  3·5

  11·8

  27·2

  16·6

  29·9

  89·0

  1989

  2·4

  10·8

  25·6

  15·0

  26·4

  80·2

  1990

  1·5

  9·5

  21·2

  13·5

  19·7

  65·4

  1991

  1·4

  8·6

  19·3

  13·8

  14·2

  57·3

  1992

  1·3

  6·1

  15·3

  11·2

  9·8

  43·7

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the cost and expenses were for the work which his Department commissioned into the future of the coal industry by Rothschilds and by Boyds.

  Mr. Eggar
  Fees paid to Government advisers are commercially confidential. Total expenditure on coal privatisation is reported to Parliament in the usual way through the publication of departmental estimates and the annual appropriation accounts.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about progress in the coal review.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I sent the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee a progress report on 7 December listing the main areas and options for consideration identified by evidence submitted to the coal review. Copies of the progress report have been placed in the Library.

  Exports and Imports (Information)
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the voluntary provision by the United Kingdom of information on the export and import of(a) nuclear material, (b) relevant equipment and (c) certain non-nuclear material to the International Atomic Energy Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Discussions in the Zangger committee are confidential to the parties involved. The next meeting is scheduled to take place in May 1993.

  In an effort to strengthen the international safeguards system, the United Kingdom, along with European Community partners, has recently notified the International Atomic Energy Agency that EC member states intend to provide information on transfers of ore concentrates imported or exported from the European Community and information on the items listed in annex B to IAEA IN FCI RC/254/RevI/Part I, when a licence for whose export to a country outside the European Community has been approved. These new arrangements are expected to commence in the new year.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether there is an agreed amount of notice given to the state that is to be inspected when the International Atomic Energy Agency undertakes special inspections; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no fixed period of notice for special inspections in the relevant safeguards agreements; these provide for prior consultation between the state and the IAEA in circumstances which may lead to a special inspection. In case action by the state is essential and urgent the IAEA board of governors may call upon the state to take the required action without delay.

  Marine Protection
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures are being taken to ensure that test drillings for oil and gas will not damage marine life off the north Wales coast.

  Mr. Eggar
  As described in my answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) on 7 December,Official Report, col 497, licences for oil and gas exploration drilling may be subject to special conditions designed to take account of the sensitivities of specific licensed blocks. In the block off the north Wales coast where drilling is currently in progress, environmental and local seabed surveys were carried out before drilling started. Water-based muds are being used, and cuttings may be discharged to the sea since tidal conditions in the area ensure their rapid dispersal. No other rig discharges are permitted, nor any fuel transfers while the rig is on site.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been expended in export credit guarantees in each of the last 10 years; and how much has been paid out in each of those years as a result of non-payment for exports.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of the volume of export credit business guaranteed over the previous 10 years, along with the related expenditure on interest rate support and the amount paid out under such guarantees by way of claims, are published each year in the annual report of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
  587
  Copies of the annual report are placed in the Library.

  East Sussex
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the problems and needs of(a) Brighton and Hove and (b) the county of East Sussex while conducting the review of the assisted areas map.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We are currently considering points made by two deputations from the areas mentioned—one from Hastings and one from Brighton and Hove. We are also considering the written submissions that have been received from these and other areas.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what current studies are being undertaken by the Harwell research laboratories into the risks of inhalation and ingestion of alpha radiation emitted from plutonium.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department and the Department of Health contribute towards a range of research projects involving the inhalation and ingestion of various radionuclides. Details of these research studies are contained in AEA Technology's radiological protection research 1992 annual report. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, pursuant to his answer of 22 October,Official Report, columns 362–63, he will make a further statement on the outcome of the analysis of the radioactive source.

  Mr. Eggar
  The sealed radioactive source contained an extremely small quantity—a few thousandths of a gram—of plutonium.

  Export Companies (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to assist Wales-based exporter companies.

  Mr. Needham
  All the excellent services to exporters provided by my Department, jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are available to exporters in Wales through the Welsh Office in Cardiff.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account was taken of articles 90 and 92 of the treaty of Rome in drawing up the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Eggar
  The non-fossil fuel obligation was notified at the appropriate time to the European Commission for the necessary clearances.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the export earnings of sales of motor cycles over 100 bhp for the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  Details of the export earnings of sales of motor cycles by brake horsepower are not available.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to bring forward the 1994 nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  It remains the Government's policy that the future prospects for nuclear power in the United Kingdom will he reviewed in 1994. However, the coal review currently being undertaken by my Department is looking at the implications of the non-fossil fuel obligation to purchase power from non-fossil sources including that from nuclear sources. It would be premature to decide detailed terms of reference for the 1994 review before the results of the coal review are known.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on issues discussed and decisions taken at the meeting of the European Community's Council of Energy Ministers on 30 November.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions on differing levels of coal subsidy in the EC took place at the EC Energy Council on 30 November; what other matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The meeting was held under the United Kingdom presidency with my hon. Friend, the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) in the chair.

  Progress was made on the technical details of the draft directive for the harmonisaion of hydrocarbon licensing regimes, which the United Kingdom also supports. The Council agreed that the draft directive should go forward for decision under Denmark's presidency.

  Political agreement was reached on the proposed directive on oil crisis measures. The related issue of the negotiating mandate for Community accession to the International Atomic Energy Agency was also discussed and remitted for further discussion by officials.

  The Council considered the progress which was being made in the negotiations for a European energy charter, reaffirmed the importance which it attached to that process, and invited the charter conference to set a deadline for concluding negotiations on the basic agreement intended to put the political commitments of the charter into legally obligatory form.

  The Council reached political agreement on the Commission's proposed programme for the promotion of renewable energies—ALTENER. ALTENER is one of four measures in the Commission's proposed CO2 stabilization package. The Council discussed progress on the other three measures. In relation to the SAVE directive, it was agreed that officials should continue with their discussions.

  The Council had a useful discussion on the European coal industry during which the Commission introduced its proposals for a new coal state aids regime to replace the existing one which expires at the end of 1993.

  One of the main agenda items was the Commission's proposal for directives on the liberalisation of the electricity and gas markets. While the United Kingdom supports these measures, other member states continue to have concerns about them. The Council invited the

  589
  Commission to consider modifying its proposals in the light of member states' comments and the opinion of the European Parliament.

  European Economic Area
  Mr. Conway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what effect the Swiss referendum result will have on implementation of the European economic area.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Swiss people voted on membership of the European economic area on 6 December. A majority of both the populace and of the cantons was required to enable Switzerland to ratify the EEA agreement. The results announced on 6 December were as follows: 50·3 per cent. of the populace voted against ratification, 49·7 per cent. in favour. Sixteen of the cantons voted against, with seven in favour. The proportion of the electorate that voted was 78·3 per cent.

  The Government regret the Swiss decision not to join the EEA. The Foreign Affairs Council on 7 December took note of the result of the Swiss referendum. It also noted that the agreement provides arrangements to consider the situation in the event that a signatory of the agreement fails to ratify. It commented that, without Switzerland, the agreement will require modifications, which will have to be satisfactorily agreed. It expressed the hope that the agreement should be rapidly pursued. It therefore invited the Commission to have early contacts with the EFTA countries on the timing of the next steps, and to report back to the Council on 21 December.

  It is the clear hope of the Community that the agreement should go ahead. It is too early to determine precisely when the agreement may now come into force. If the agreement is to be amended, a diplomatic conference will agree the necessary changes. The Government believe that every effort should be made to ensure that the agreement can be implemented as soon as possible, and we shall, in the remaining weeks of our presidency be working towards this objective.

  The European Economic Area Bill was introduced in this House on 25 November, having passed through all its stages in another place. The Government will announce in due course how it proposes to proceed with the Bill when the impact of the Swiss vote on the Community and EFTA has been fully assessed.

  Department of Energy Staff
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many former Department of Energy personnel(a) have been placed on paid leave and (b) are currently on paid leave as a consequence of the incorporation of the former Department of Energy into his Department; what was the duration of paid leave which has been incurred in each case; and what is the total cost of the paid leave.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 18 November 1992]: Three members of staff from the former Department of Energy were temporarily placed on paid leave as a consequence of the merger of the Department with DTI. One remains on leave pending retirement in January. As at 30 November the duration of the paid leave was 70 working days at a total cost of £6,149·15.

  Energy Supplies
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost to the balance of payments over each of the past five years for which figures are available in respect of imported energy supplies of(a) oil, (b) gas, (c) coal, (d) electricity via the channel connector and (e) overall.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: Figures on a balance of payments basis are not available in the detail requested.

  Data in the "Overseas Trade Statistics" value imports on a "cif" basis, that is, including the cost of freight and insurance to a United Kingdom port, and exports on an "fob" basis, that is, free on board at a United Kingdom port. A comparison on these bases gives the following levels of net exports:

  £ million

  Oil1

  Gas

  Coal2

  Electricity

  Total

  1987

  4,073

  -878

  -281

  -242

  2,673

  1988

  2,571

  -692

  -376

  -268

  1,235

  1989

  1,095

  -615

  -404

  -305

  -228

  1990

  1,167

  -519

  -511

  -200

  -86

  1991

  1,102

  -472

  -637

  -343

  -351

  1 Crude oil and petroleum products.

  2 Includes other solid fuels.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom (CSO).

  Deep-mining Equipment
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the net balance of trade in deep-mining equipment in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 December 1992]: The standard international trade classification, which governs the recording of trade data, does not provide for differentiation between machinery for deep mining and that for other types of coal mining, rock cutting or tunnelling. However, based on the various categories within the classification relating to this type of equipment, of which a major part will have been for coal mining, the trade surpluses in the last four years were as follows:

  £ million

  1988

  24·5

  1989

  38·5

  1990

  34·2

  1991

  47·2

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics.

  It is not possible to provide compatible data for 1987, as the classification in operation at that time was less detailed than the current one.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 253, what is the specific number of jobs that he intends to cut in the Export Credits Guarantee Department in Cardiff.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Following the privatisation of ECGD's insurance services

  591
  business the number of posts remaining in Cardiff was projected in the 1992 public expenditure survey to fall from 196 to 165 over three years. The recent review of the distribution of ECGD's functions will lead to a further net reduction of 10 posts over that period. Efficiency improvements are likely to lead to further reductions in both London and Cardiff, but these have yet to be determined and will depend on the level of business.

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much Brazilian mahogany, by volume and by value, was imported into Britain in 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The only information that relates to mahogany imported from Brazil is that which has been sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, of a thickness exceeding 6mm, defined as code 440723901 of the standard international trade classification, revision 3. Under this heading there were 45,762 cu m of mahogany, valued at £22 million, imported into the United Kingdom from Brazil in 1991.

  Single Market
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will provide a breakdown of the cost of each of the five editions of "The single market: A Guide to Public Purchasing"; how many copies were produced for each edition; and what guidance on public purchasing has been produced by every other EC member state in accordance with community guidelines.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The costs of the five editions of DTI's 'The Single Market: Guide to Public Purchasing' are as follows:

  £

  Copies

  1st edition, September 1989

  20,850

  25,000

  2nd edition, June 1990

  25,520

  23,000

  3rd edition, February 1991

  13,740

  15,000

  4th edition, September 1991

  18,446

  20,000

  5th edition, March 1992

  17,970

  26,000

  There are no Community guidelines regarding the guidance on public purchasing to be produced by other member states. We are aware of written guidance published by France, Ireland, Italy and Portugal. Information from every member state could not be obtained in the time available and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on the report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on the recognition of bronchitis and emphysema as an industrial injury; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 10 November 1992]: The report by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on bronchitis and emphysema is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security.

LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

  Northern Ireland Legal System
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many qualified lawyers are employed on a full-time basis in the Northern Ireland court service.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The staff of the Northern Ireland court service presently includes four qualified lawyers. It is expected that an additional lawyer will take up employment early next year, bringing the total to five

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many qualified lawyers are employed in the Northern Ireland legal aid department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I understand that the legal aid department of the Law Society of Northern Ireland currently employs five professional lawyers.

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what has been the cost of the Windsor house branch of the Northern Ireland court service in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The costs of the Northern Ireland court service branches located in Windsor house were £2·4 million in 1989–90, £2·2 million in 1990–91 and £2·4 million in 1991–92.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Questions
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many(a) oral and (b) written questions were asked in the last Session of Parliament; and what was the estimated total cost to Her Majesty's Government of answering them.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of questions appearing on the Order Paper in Session 1991–92 for oral answer was 2,383 and for written answer was 16,050. The estimated cost to Departments of preparing answers was £481,366 for oral questions and £1,396,350 for written questions.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will now introduce legislation to remove Crown immunity in the Houses of Parliament in respect of staff working conditions and public health provision.

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so.

  Philippines Delegation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on his meeting with a parliamentary delegation from the Philippines on 2 December.

  Mr. Newton
  I received a delegation of parliamentarians from the Philippines at the request of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The meeting, which lasted 40 minutes, focused almost exclusively on
  593
  comparisons between our different parliamentary traditions. Speaker de Venecia, who led the delegation, thanked the United Kingdom Government for their assistance in the current discussions on debt rescheduling.

  Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many ministerial statements have been made by each Department of State since Session 1989–90.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 27 November 1992]: From the beginning of Session 1989–90 to 4 December 1992, the following number of statements have been made in the House by each Department of State.

  Number

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  10

  Office of Arts and Libraries

  2

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers (Attorney General)

  1

  Ministry of Defence

  19

  Department of Education and Science

  6

  Department of Employment

  7

  Department of Energy

  4

  Department of the Environment

  14

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  24

  Department of Health

  9

  Home Office

  22

  Lord President's Office

  2

  Office of Public Services and Science

  1

  Department of National Heritage

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  10

  Scottish Office

  15

  Department of Social Security

  10

  Department of Trade and Industry

  18

  Department of Transport

  13

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  11

  Welsh Office

  11

  In addition, the Prime Minister has made 22 statements to the House in the same period.

TRANSPORT

  Red Star Parcels
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the completion of the privatisation of Red Star.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Secretary of State for Transport gave the British Railways Board approval in principle on 7 October to proceed to the sale of Red Star. The timing of the sale itself is the responsibility of the Board.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effect on employment of the privatisation of Red Star Parcels.

  Mr. Freeman
  The manner of the disposal of Red Star Parcels is a commercial matter for the British Railways Board. Red Star has been loss-making for a number of years. Action will be necessary to return the business to profitability, whether in public or private ownership.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bids or expressions of interest for Red Star Parcels have been received since his announcement in October that it was to be sold off.

  Mr. Freeman
  The British Railways Board is handling the sale of Red Star Parcels, and will be issuing invitations 594
  to tender in due course. All expressions of interest in Red Star directed to the Department of Transport have been referred to the British Railways Board.

  Blackburn-Burnley Railway Line
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investment over the last three financial years has been made on improvements to stations and ticketing arrangements on the line between Blackburn and Burnley; and what investment is planned for the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department does not hold the information requested. Investment at this level is a matter for the British Railways Board. Over £1 billion will be available for investment in the channel tunnel and the existing railway in 1993–94.

  British Rail
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which British Rail services do not face competition from other transport modes.

  Mr. Freeman
  All British Rail services face competition to some degree from other modes of transport.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each major part of British Rail the levels of capital spending for each year from 1984; and if he will list British Rail income, separating assets, sales and grants for each year from 1984.

  Mr. Freeman
  (i) The information for 1991–92 is as follows:

  British Rail capital spending

  £ million

  Network SouthEast

  355

  Intercity

  94

  Regional Railways

  147

  Trainload Freight

  86

  Railfreight Distribution

  75

  Parcels

  2

  European Passenger Services

  205

  Corporate/Subsidiary

  41

  Total

  1,005

  Figures for earlier years are not available.

  (ii) The information for asset sales, grants and new income is in the table:

  British Rail income 1984–85–1991–92

  £ million 1991–92 prices

  Asset sales

  Grants

  Other income

  Total income

  1984–85

  176

  1,142

  2,892

  4,210

  1985–86

  105

  1,302

  3,232

  4,639

  1986–87

  141

  1,074

  3,338

  4,553

  1987–88

  232

  1,122

  3,405

  4,759

  1988–89

  326

  770

  3,431

  4,527

  1989–90

  382

  704

  3,346

  4,432

  1990–91

  130

  780

  3,290

  4,200

  1991–92

  54

  1,035

  3,151

  4,240

  Notes:

  1984–85 was a 15-month year; 12-month equivalent given.

  Grants comprise public service obligation (PSO) grant, level crossing grant and passenger transport executive (PTE) grant.

  Wyre Piddle Bypass
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposed Wyre Piddle bypass on the B4084 and its possible extension to include the village of Upper Moor and transport supplementary grant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department has received a number of representations about this proposal. However, the extent of the bypass and the priority given to its construction are matters for Hereford and Worcester county council, which is responsible for the B4084. We shall consider the case for transport supplementary grant when a detailed proposal is put to us by the county council.

  Motor cycle accidents statistics 1981 to 1991

  Year

  Accidents

  Accidents involving motor cycles

  Casualties

  Casualties in accidents involving motor cyclists

  Motor cyclist

  Other

  All

  1991

  235,798

  31,206

  311,269

  30,736

  5,153

  35,889

  1990

  258,441

  39,704

  341,141

  39,048

  6,303

  45,351

  1989

  260,759

  43,280

  341,592

  42,630

  6,970

  49,600

  1988

  246,994

  43,583

  322,305

  42,836

  6,807

  49,643

  1987

  239,063

  46,257

  311,473

  45,801

  7,375

  53,176

  1986

  247,854

  52,623

  321,451

  52,280

  8,471

  60,751

  1985

  245,645

  56,754

  317,524

  56,591

  9,251

  65,842

  1984

  253,183

  63,958

  324,314

  63,821

  n/a

  n/a

  1983

  242,876

  64,552

  308,584

  64,494

  11,407

  75,901

  1982

  255,980

  71,267

  334,296

  71,920

  13,338

  85,258

  1981

  248,276

  68,859

  324,840

  69,129

  n/a

  n/a

  Note: Data on other casualties involved in motor cycle accidents are not available for the years 1984 and 1981.

  EC Rail Networks
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to lay regulations to implement EC directive 91/440 on the development of the Community's railways.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have today laid regulations to implement EC directive 91/440 which provides for a right of access to EC rail networks for certain international rail services.

  Speed Limit, Rutland
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will authorise Rutland council to paint large white roundels on its village roads drawing attention to the existence of a 30 mph limit on the lines of the current experiment in the Bovingdon area of Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The experiments to determine the effectiveness of painting speed limit roundels on the road surface, as a way of influencing driver choice of speed, are not yet complete. If they are shown to improve road safety, we will authorise local highway authorities to instal them where appropriate.

  Railways White Paper
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the names of those who have responded to his White Paper on new opportunities for the railways, distinguishing those who responded favourably.

  Mr. Freeman
  Many individuals and organisations have responded to the White Paper. A wide variety of views have been expressed.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of accidents involving motor cycles were not caused by the riders themselves in each year from 1981.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  My Department's injury accident statistics do not include an allocation of responsibility for the accident. The table shows motor cycle accidents and casualties in relation to total accidents and casualties.

  Nuclear Material (Transport)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will obtain a copy of the report prepared by the Japanese Government's Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industries on the sea transport of plutonium.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The Department has no information about this report.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he has taken of the vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg in November based on documents B3–0868/92, 0–163/92 and B3–0869/92, 0–164/ 92 on the international transport of plutonium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The international transport of plutonium by all modes is governed by the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which are kept under continuous review.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what kinds of vessels or other kinds of transport are used for the maritime transport of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium and high-level radioactive waste to and from, or by, the United Kingdom; and what monitoring his Department carries out of the transport patterns for the movement of such materials.
  597
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Ships complying fully with international convention standards for safety and pollution prevention are used for the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel. No plutonium or high-level radioactive wastes have been transported to or from the United Kingdom except for small quantities of plutonium used for life-support systems such as energy sources for heart pacemakers. Transport patterns are not monitored by the Department.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the full text of the governmental studies of analyses of the transport of irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium or high-level radioactive waste produced since December 1991.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: No such studies have been carried out.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the submissions made by the United Kingdom to the joint International Atomic Energy Agency—International Maritime Organisation—United Nations Environment Programme working group have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: There were no United Kingdom Government submissions.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the standard operations of maritime transport carrying irradiated nuclear fuel, plutonium or high-level radioactive waste to and from, or by, the United Kingdom; and what accident rate for such operations has been recorded in each year since 1982.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Of the United Kingdom-registered ships known to carry such cargo there was one incident recorded in 1991 which directly concerned handling operations and which falls within the scope of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Investigation) Regulations 1989. Records of incidents prior to the establishment of the marine accident investigation branch in July 1989 are not fully comprehensive. However, there are no known cases of serious incidents involving such cargo and operations between 1982 and mid-1989.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Scotch Street, Armagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the distance between Nos. 1 and 74 Scotch street, Armagh city; how many street lights there are along this length of public street; what proposals he has to improve street lighting at Scotch street; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Atkins
  The distance between Nos. 1 and 74 Scotch street, Armagh is approximately 265 m. There are currently six street lights along this length of public road and the provision of a further light is being pursued.

  Bomb Damage
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many owner occupiers in the Antrim road area, Glengormley, agreed to the Northern 598
  Ireland Housing Executive's offer to carry out repairs arising from bomb damage on 30 October; and how many such owner-occupiers have agreed to compensation for such damage being a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that at 3 December, 17 owner-occupiers in the Glengormley area had taken up the executive's offer to carry out repairs on the basis that they will assign their compensation rights to the executive.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many owner occupiers in Newtownbreda/Belvoir estate have agreed to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive offer to carry out repairs arising from bomb damage on 23 September; how many owner-occupiers have agreed to compensation for such damage being a matter for the Housing Executive; and how many privately owned homes were damaged as a result of the IRA bomb at the Forensic Science Laboratory.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am advised by the Chief Executive of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive that at 3 December no owner-occupiers in the Newtownbreda/Belvoir estate had taken up the executive's offer to carry out repairs and consequently no householders had assigned their compensation rights.

  A total of 428 privately owned homes were damaged.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the allocation to individual programmes in Northern Ireland of the public expenditure totals announced on 12 November.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In his autumn statement on 12 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced total public expenditure planning figures for the Northern Ireland programme. I have now decided on the allocations to individual programmes as shown in the table. Copies of a more detailed statement have been placed in the Library. These allocations reflect my assessment of how best to distribute the Northern Ireland public expenditure totals in response to local needs and circumstances.

  £ Million

  Programme

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northern Ireland Office:

  Law, Order, Protective and Miscellaneous Services

  902

  910

  930

  Northern Ireland Departments:

  Northern Ireland Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Service and Support

  124

  130

  130

  Industry, Trade and Employment

  466

  450

  440

  Energy

  6

  10

  10

  Roads and Transport

  174

  170

  170

  Housing

  244

  250

  260

  Environmental and Miscellaneous Services

  238

  250

  250

  Law, Order and Protective Services (Fire Service)

  39

  40

  40

  Education, Arts and Libraries

  1,234

  1,300

  1,360

  Health and Personal Social Services

  1,318

  1,410

  1,500

  599

  £ Million

  Programme

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Social Security Administration

  146

  140

  140

  Other Public Services

  93

  100

  100

  Total NI Block (excluding Social Security Benefits)

  4,984

  5,160

  5,320

  Social Security Benefits

  2,353

  2,390

  2,470

  Total NI Block

  7,338

  7,550

  7,790

  National Agricultural and Fishery Support

  122

  140

  150

  Total Northern Ireland Programme

  7,460

  7,690

  7,940

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million for 1993–94 and to the nearest £10 million for 1994–95 and 1995–96. Figures may not sum to totals due to roundings.

  2. The health and personal social services programme includes a transfer of £25 million, £65 million and £100 milllion from social security benefits for community care.

  3. The 1993–94 figures will form the basis for preparation of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments' main estimates. These will be presented to Parliament in due course.

  EC Funding
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been received by Northern Ireland under each of the European Community initiatives to date; and how much of the money received in each financial year up to 31 December 1991 from EC sources has been paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

  Mr. Mates
  Under the current structural funds allocation, Northern Ireland has nine approved Community initiatives. Of these initiatives, four were not approved until December 1991 and three until February 1992. The amounts received in Northern Ireland up to 31 December 1991 under the two remaining initiatives, Interreg and Envireg, were £4·67 million and £1·51 million respectively. The total forecast amounts received under each initiative up to 31 December 1992 are:

  Forecast receipts to 31 December 1992

  Initiative

  £ million

  Interreg (assistance to border areas)

  13·10

  Stride (research and technological development)

  3·75

  Envireg (environmental improvement)

  1·94

  Prisma (assistance to firms)

  0·80

  Telematique (promotion of telecommunications service)

  1·65

  Euroform (qualifications for women)

  0·32

  NOW (employment opportunities for women)

  0·35

  Horizon (handicapped and certain disadvantaged groups)

  0·18

  Leader (rural development)

  0·26

  All money received from EC sources is paid into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the receipts which Northern Ireland has received from the European regional development fund since 1973 has been earned by(a) infrastructure projects undertaken by non-central government bodies, (b) infrastructure projects undertaken by central Government and (c) industrial projects.
  600
  Mr. Mates
  The following amounts have been received from the European regional development fund to 31 December 1991:

  Infrastructure

  £ million

  Non-central Government

  120·5

  Central Government

  78·3

  Industry

  91·8

  Programmes1

  97·3

  Total2

  387·9

  1 These programmes combine elements of both industry and infrastructure.

  2 Includes estimated receipts for the first nine months of the 1991–92 financial year.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the receipts which Northern Ireland has received from the European regional development fund since 1973 has been earned by(a) the private sector, (b) non-central government public sector bodies and (c) central Government.

  Mr. Mates
  The following amounts have been received from the European regional development fund to 31 December 1991:

  £ million

  Private Sector

  30·9

  Non-central Government Public Sector Bodies

  174·6

  Central Government

  182·4

  Total

  387·9

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's payments into the European Economic Community from 1 January 1973 to 31 December 1991; how much was Northern Ireland's share of the receipts for the same period; and how much of those receipts was used to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  It is not possible to determine Northern Ireland's actual share of the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Community because payments are made on a national and not a regional basis. Similarly it is not possible to identify the full extent of receipts from the Community. However, a Northern Ireland attributed share of the contribution to the EC is calculated as an accounting mechanism necessary because of the operation of a separate Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. This notional attributed share does not count as an item of expenditure within the Northern Ireland public expenditure programme and has therefore no bearing on the level of public expenditure in the Province.

  Figures for the notional attribution of part of Northern Ireland's share of the United Kingdom's payments and for those areas where the receipts from the European Community's structural funds can be separately identified are as follows:
  601

  Financial Year

  Attributed Share (part)

  Identified Receipts2

  1973–74

  1

  0

  1974–75

  6

  4

  1975–76

  8

  4

  1976–77

  13

  16

  1977–78

  16

  14

  1978–79

  24

  19

  1979–80

  28

  31

  1980–81

  28

  44

  1981–82

  50

  41

  1982–83

  66

  53

  1983–84

  66

  51

  1984–85

  68

  58

  1985–86

  74

  44

  1986–87

  62

  77

  1987–88

  91

  111

  1988–89

  85

  96

  1989–90

  104

  95

  1990–91

  1126

  110

  1991–92

  1100

  132

  Total

  1,016

  1,000

  1 Attributed share figures for the last two years are provisional estimates which will be revised when final details of tax revenues are determined.

  2 This comprises total identified EC structural funds receipts in Northern Ireland.

  All receipts represent cash additions to the recipients and are subject to normal European Community audit arrangements.

  The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decisions on public expenditure allocations and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received in each financial year up to 31 December 1991 from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guidance section; how much of those receipts were paid to the private sector and how much to the public sector; how much of these receipts represented a cash addition to the Northern Ireland economy; and how much was used each year to offset Government expenditure on Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Mates
  The following amounts were received from the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guidance section:

  £ million

  Individual capital projects

  Other guidance schemes

  Financial year

  Private sector

  Public sector1

  Private sector2

  Public sector

  Total

  1974–75

  —

  —

  0·25

  —

  0·25

  1975–76

  0·45

  —

  0·21

  —

  0·66

  1976–77

  1·87

  0·31

  0·27

  —

  2·45

  1977–78

  1·28

  0·31

  1·28

  —

  2·87

  1978–79

  0·70

  0·24

  2·46

  —

  3·40

  1979–80

  1·27

  0·20

  3·21

  —

  4·68

  1980–81

  1·91

  1·05

  3·35

  —

  6·31

  1981–82

  1·43

  0·13

  4·69

  —

  6·25

  1982–83

  2·47

  0·99

  3·30

  —

  6·76

  1983–84

  1·59

  0·38

  14·65

  —

  16·61

  1984–85

  0·95

  0·28

  13·29

  —

  14·52

  1985–86

  3·56

  0·03

  11·83

  —

  15·42

  1986–87

  2·58

  0·11

  5·96

  —

  8·65

  1987–88

  3·29

  —

  5·99

  —

  9·28

  1988–89

  2·31

  0·51

  10·05

  —

  12·87

  602

  Individual capital projects

  Other guidance schemes

  Financial year

  Private sector

  Public sector1

  Private sector2

  Public sector

  Total

  1989–90

  2·84

  —

  6·60

  —

  9·44

  1990–91

  3·35

  —

  6·25

  —

  9·60

  41991–92

  0·43

  —

  13·62

  3·06

  317·11

  Total

  32·28

  4·54

  107·26

  3·06

  147·13

  1 Includes the Milk Marketing Board, which is not financed from public funds although it is a statutory body.

  2 Includes reference to the approximate share in Northern Ireland on various structural schemes which were applied throughout the United Kingdom.

  3 Provisional outturn to December 1991.

  4 To December 1991.

  All these receipts present cash additions to the recipients and are subject to normal European Community audit arrangements. The overall level of receipts is taken into account in the Government's decision on public expenditure allocations and their availability enables public expenditure to be maintained at a higher level than would otherwise be feasible.

  New Opportunities for Women
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland what moneys have been deployed by way of the European Community's new opportunities for women initiative under article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC)No. 4253/88 in(a) 1991 and (b) so far this year; what kind of employment and training programmes were funded in this way; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 7 December 1992:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monies have been deployed by way of the European Community's NOW initiative under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88 in:

  (a) 1991; and

  (b) so far this year;

  what kind of employment and training programmes were funded in this way; and if he will make a statement.

  The Training and Employment Agency (T&EA) has responsibility for the administration of the NOW initiative in Northern Ireland. As Chief Executive of the T&EA, I have been asked by the Secretary of State to reply on his behalf.

  To date no money has been paid to promoters of projects under the NOW initiative in Northern Ireland apart from preliminary technical assistance to help promoters establish links with their transnational partners and jointly develop their projects. Technical assistance amounting to £20,000 has been committed and £14,500 paid.

  Letters offering assistance totalling £226,000 have issued; and the first tranche of payments, amounting to £43,000 should be made shortly. Further Letters of Offer in respect of assistance totalling some £600,000 are in the process of being prepared.

  Projects for assistance under the NOW initiative have been put forward by a wide range of bodies including rural and inner-city women's groups, training organisations and institutions of further and higher education. These projects all seek to enhance the skill levels and employment prospects of women and include pre-vocational training, training in new technologies and training in relation to business creation.

  In administering the NOW initiative in Northern Ireland, the T&EA has sought to enable as many groups as possible to

  603
  benefit despite the relatively small amount of EC assistance available (our original allocation was some £700,000). This has involved encouraging promoters of similar projects to establish networks within Northern Ireland enabling them to share resources, expertise and transnational contacts.

WALES

  Students
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Clwyd schoolchildren of GCSE age have taken the exams; and what proportion of Clwyd students carry on from GCSE to A-level.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the proportion of pupils who carry on to A level from GCSE is not collected. In 1991–92, 93 per cent. of Clwyd schoolchildren aged 15 sat GCSE examinations. In 1991–92, 1,476 students were following A level courses in Clwyd (in year 12 at school, or at college aged 16). This represents 39 per cent. of pupils aged 15 who sat GCSE the previous year.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of students in Wales carry on from GCSE to A level.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on the proportion of pupils who carry on from GCSE to A level is not collected. In 1991–92, 29,660 students were following A level courses in Wales (in year 12 at school, or at college aged 16). This represents 39 per cent. of pupils aged 15 who sat GCSE the previous year.

  Drug Addiction (Pregnancy)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children were born in Wales suffering from drug addiction in 1991–92 as a result of the mother's usage during pregnancy.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None in 1990–91, the latest year for which information is available.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken to help small businesses in Wales develop closer ties with Europe.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A wide range of measures are available. Among the more significant are:

  Overseas trade services

  The Welsh Office is part of a United Kingdom-wide network established to encourage businesses to take advantage of opportunities abroad. Advice is given to businesses on both how to enter new export markets and provide overseas trade services. Assistance is available particularly for small and medium enterprises (SM Es) which are entering overseas markets for the first time.

  The Welsh Office also promotes awareness of the availability of assistance for exporting at trade fairs and through sales missions to overseas markets. Over the last five years missions have visited Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Italy. Next year missions are planned to Germany, Switzerland and Belgium.
  604
  EC relay centre network

  A Welsh centre is planned for January 1993 as part of a network being established throughout the European Community, to encourage SMEs to participate in and exploit the results of the Community's research and development programmes.

  The development agencies

  The Welsh Development Agency (WDA) participates in various initiatives designed to help Welsh companies seek new business opportunities in Europe. These initiatives include the Wales European centre, Eurolink, Europartenariat, Wales Euro Info centres and Fit for Europe reviews.

  The Development Board for Rural Wales (DBRW) provides core funding for mid-Wales Export Association Ltd based at Welshpool. All of the board's export activities are channelled through this specialist organisation which in turn provides a full range of export advice and services to businesses in rural mid-Wales. In recent years the Export Association has given particular emphasis to the opportunities that might be presented to companies in mid-Wales through the advent of the single European market.

  Links with the Four Motors

  Links have been established between Wales and four of the most economically advanced regions of Europe—Baden-Wurttemberg, Lombardy, Catalonia and Rhone-Alpes, known together as the Four Motors. Through these links SMEs are offered various opportunities in these regions including technology transfer, joint ventures and for trade.

  Local enterprise agencies

  With the advent of the single European market several of Wales's enterprise agencies, including those which have received core-funding from the WDA, have developed a service for businesses wishing to obtain adsvice and counselling about Europe.

  Urban programme

  Urbane programme support has been made available for projects which encourage the development of links between Welsh businesses and Europe.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the inward investment projects in Wales since 1979 and the jobs created or safeguarded by each project.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information is not available for projects recorded before 1 April 1983. Since that time over 1,000 projects have been recorded and a list of the companies concerned, other than those who have requested confidentiality, has been placed in the Library of the House. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, individual details of jobs are not disclosed.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales in 1991–92 died(a) as an indirect result and (b) as a direct result of drug abuse.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the calendar year 1991, the latest year for which data is available, there were six deaths directly attributable to drug misuse in Wales.
  605
  Data on deaths as an indirect result of drug misuse are not collected centrally.

  European Community Grants
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much Wales has received in European Community grants in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The European regional development fund is the only one of the main stream structural funds for which expenditure can be identified on an annual basis. The total commitments to eligible Welsh bodies from the fund in each of the past 10 years are shown in the following table:

  £ million

  1982

  46·7

  1983

  48·9

  1984

  63·0

  1985

  54·9

  1986

  49·7

  1987

  57·8

  1988

  63·3

  1989

  38·8

  1990

  27·4

  1991

  89·0

  The European social fund (ESF) element of objectives 2 and 5(b) of the structural funds was administered directly by the European Commission prior to 1990 and figures for Wales are not readily available. However commitment figures for subsequent years are as follows:

  £ million

  1990

  11·38

  1991

  11·96

  Objectives 3 and 4 of the structural fund which are also supported by ESF monies are administered on a GB basis and figures for Wales are not separately identifiable.

  Figures for FEOGA grant are not available on a comparable basis to the ERDF.

  Welsh Museum School Service
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision will be made to fund the Welsh museum's school service centrally.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 5 November at col.388.

  Radiation
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the most recently recorded levels of radiation off the north coast of Wales; and by what amount they differ from background levels.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Details of the latest recorded levels of radiation off the north Wales coast can be found in the "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report" (No. 29) 1990, published by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House.

  The major radionuclide in the Irish sea is Caesium 137, and levels of this have decreased markedly in recent years.
  606
  The extent of this decrease can be seen in figure 4.4 of the "Environmental Digest for Wales" No. 6 1991, copies of which are also kept in the Library of the House.

  Adult Training
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what policy initiatives he is taking to enhance the retraining of unemployed men and women over the age of 21 years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 12 November 1992 at column 903.

  Education White Paper
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the consultations on the White Paper, "Choice and Diversity and the Education Bill", supported the proposals and how many were opposed.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 13 November to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) at column 993.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish his proposals for the reform of local government in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I will announce my decisions as soon as possible.

  Hearing Impairment
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what resources he has provided to each county council in Wales in each of the past five years(a) in respect of children statemented for hearing impairment as having special educational needs and (b) in respect of children with hearing impairment who have not been statemented.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is for local authorities to determine what resources should be directed to education services, including those for children with hearing impairments.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what salaries are being paid to chairmen and ordinary members of NHS trusts; how many hours per week members of the trusts are contractually required to work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Chairmen receive a remuneration of between £15,125 and £19,285 per annum dpending on the turnover of the trust. Members receive £5,000 per annum for an expected time commitment of at least the equivalent of two days per month.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the chairmen and members of the national health service trusts in Wales, together with their known political affiliations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The chairman of the NHS trusts in Wales are as follows:
  607

  Mr. Anthony J.G. Bowen, Pembrokeshire NHS Trust.

  Mr. John H. Button, Swansea NHS Trust.

  Mr. John Curteis, South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust.

  Mr. Colin Hughes Davies, Glan Hafren NHS Trust.

  Mr. Edmund Francis Lloyd Fitzhugh, Gofal Cymuned Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust.

  Mr. E. Michael W. Griffith, Glan Clwyd District General Hospital NHS Trust.

  Brigadier Ronald Edward Lewis Jenkins, Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust.

  Mr. Derek W. C. Morgan, Bridgend and District NHS Trust.

  Mrs. Fiona Natalie Peel, Gwent Community Health NHS Trust.

  The Hon. Mrs.Rosalind (Lindy) Helen Penrose Price, Powys Health Care NHS Trust.

  Mr. Aldham Roberts, Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust.

  Mr. Brian Thompson, Carmarthen and District NHS Trust.

  Sir Donald Walters, Llandough Hospital NHS Trust.

  Mrs. Sally Williams, Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust.

  The non-executive directors of the Pembrokeshire NHS Trust are as follows:

  Mr. Richard A.Collins

  Mr. David L. Hughes

  Mr. Glyn T. Noakes

  Mr. Thomas S.Smedley

  Mrs. Margaret Thomas

  Appointments are made irrespective of political affiliation and such information is not held centrally.

  Training Providers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is his policy that training and enterprise councils in Wales shall pass on to training providers the cash to pay allowances to trainees in advance of the relevant pay day or within seven days of those costs falling on the training providers.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are responsible for the funding arrangements which they have with their providers. It is for these two parties to agree such arrangements.

  Students (Accommodation)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will amend the regulations to enable housing associations to let accommodation to students more easily; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have already taken steps to maintain and encourage turnover in student lettings through the Assured and Protected Tenancies (Lettings to Students) Regulations 1988, as amended, which added all registered housing associations to the list of bodies able to offer non-assured tenancies to students in Wales and England.

  Land Liming
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase subsidies to encourage liming the land near rivers and streams in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have no plans to extend grant aid for routine applications of lime. Farmers with improvement plans under the Farm and Conservation Grant 608
  Regulations can obtain grant assistance towards the cost of liming land where this is part of a programme of reseeding and regeneration. In the less favoured areas, lime treatment alone is eligible for grant where it can be demonstrated to be genuine restoration and not routine treatment.

  Broadleaf Trees
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase subsidies to encourage the growing of broadleaf trees in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government have no plans to increase the subsidies which are already available to encourage the planting of broadleaved trees. Higher rates of grant are paid under the woodland grant scheme for the establishment and management of broadleaved woodlands, and these have been successful in encouraging an increased amount of broadleaved planting in Wales.

  River Acidification
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to combat river acidification in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office is currently considering river acidification as part of its wider work and research on acid deposition in Wales.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in which circumstances a senior officer of a health authority in Wales might fulfil both purchaser and provider roles at the same time.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 7 December at column 509.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is his policy that the purchaser and provider funding shall be clearly defined and separated within a health authority in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  District health authorities in Wales are funded to purchase health care for their resident populations. They are expected to plan and monitor this expenditure and at the same time take into account—both in their overall financial plans and their in-year financial management—the provider income and expenditure of their directly-managed units. The outturn income and expenditure of both the purchaser and provider functions are recorded in the health authority's annual accounts.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for every district health authority in Wales(a) the number of acute beds and (b) the total number of hospital beds at 31 March 1991.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Staffed beds allocated as at 31 March 1991

  Acute1

  Total

  Clwyd

  1,276

  2,335

  East Dyfed

  680

  1,568

  Gwent

  1,400

  3,044

  609

  Acute1

  Total

  Gwynedd

  656

  1,534

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,840

  4,081

  Pembrokeshire

  258

  461

  Powys

  196

  900

  South Glamorgan

  1,665

  3,234

  West Glamorgan

  1,310

  2,377

  1 Excluding geriatrics, obstetrics, GP maternityand psychiatric specialties.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he intends to collate and publish the examination results of(a) grant-maintained and (b) independent schools in Wales;

  (2) when he will publish the examination results and league tables for schools in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  School performance data relating to examination achievements of secondary schools will be published very soon.

  The data will include all LEA and grant-maintained schools and those independent schools which have agreed to participate.

  Tourism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of revenue from tourism to Wales in 1980, 1990 and 1991; what proposals he has to facilitate increased tourism in 1992–93: and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  [pursuant to his answer, 11 November 1992, c. 820]: Unfortunately an incorrect figure was given, the correct answer is as follows:

  Estimates of expenditure by overnight visitors to Wales are given in the following table. Since 1989, information on United Kingdom visitors to Wales has been obtained from the United Kingdom tourism survey. It is not possible to make a direct comparison between the results of this and earlier surveys. Information on overseas visitors is not available prior to 1981.

  Estimates of expenditure by day visitors are available only for the financial year ending on 31 March 1989 when an estimated £229 million was spent in Wales.

  Expenditure by overnight visitors to Wales1

  £ million

  Year

  United Kingdom visitors

  Overseas visitors

  1980

  2—

  3—

  1981

  2—

  50

  1990

  900

  130

  1991

  900

  130

  Sources: United Kingdom Travel Survey, International Passenger Survey.

  1 These estimates, derived from sample surveys and thus subject to potential random sampling errors, have been rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2 Not available on a comparable basis.

  3 Not available prior to 1981.

  In order further to promote tourism in Wales, the Government uplifted support for the Wales tourist board by 20 per cent. in 1992–93 to a record £13·529 million.

DEFENCE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. Aitken
  Over the last five years the MOD, under the Government's relocation initiative, has relocated 836 posts from London to other parts of the United Kingdom. Details are as follows:

  Location

  Posts

  Bath

  196

  Yeovilton

  54

  Swindon

  210

  Sutton Coldfield

  250

  Cranwell

  9

  Harrogate

  65

  Llangennech

  32

  Andover

  10

  Portsmouth

  10

  Total

  836

  In the preceding five years, 743 posts were moved from London to Glasgow under the central dispersal programme, with a final tranche of 23 posts moving to Glasgow in 1989.

  The MOD is already a well-dispersed Department, with 60 per cent. of its civilian staff already based outside London and the south east. As a result of moves already planned and reductions in staff numbers, only about 30 per cent. of Ministry of Defence civilians will be left in London by the mid-1990s.

  Weir Group plc
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 November to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French),Official Report, column 700, if he will identify the principal equipment projects concerned in the payments of over £250 million to the Weir Group plc in the financial year 1990–91, as recorded in table 1.17 of "1992 Defence Statistics".

  Mr. Aitken
  Payments shown against the Weir Group in table 1.17 of the "1992 Defence Statistics" include those to Devonport Management Ltd. by virtue of the fact that Weir Group was by a narrow margin the largest shareholder in the DML consortium. Some 97 per cent. of payments relate to DML's activity as the term contract holder for managing the Devonport dockyard licensed area and associated refitting and defect rectification of ships, submarines and other vessels, and other work required by the authority. Contracts placed with companies in the Weir Group, mainly for pumps, compressors and ancillary equipment, account for the remaining 3 per cent. of payments.

  For clarity of presentation, DML will be shown separately in the "1993 Defence Statistics".

  Royal Ordnance, Radway Green
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet workers' representatives from British Aerospace Defence—Royal Ordnance, Radway Green to discuss procurement policy.

  Mr. Aitken
  If the hon. Member would like to lead such a delegation, I would be willing to meet it.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to negotiate a successor agreement to the explosives, propellants and related products agreement with Royal Ordnance, Radway Green; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  We do not intend to negotiate a successor agreement to the explosives, propellants and related products agreement which expires in March 1993. This was always intended to be an interim arrangement. Our defence procurement policy is to seek the best long-term value for money through the use of competition wherever possible.

  Channel Islands (War Records)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what documents his Department holds relating to the wartime Nazi crimes in the camps on Alderney In the Channel islands; and which such records have been given to the former Soviet authorities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold any relevant papers. Detailed records of the British investigations into world war 2 war crimes in the Channel islands are available for public examination at the Public Record Office.

  Copies of records relating to the investigations into the incidents on Alderney and Jersey were passed to the former Soviet authorities in October 1945.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 166, what consultations there are between Bosnian military commanders and (a) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, (b) Bosnia-Herzegovina command and (c) the national contingents of the United Nations protection force prior to the departure of each convoy; and if he will make a statements.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Consultation between Bosnian military commanders and United Nations agencies to ensure that humanitarian aid convoys are able to proceed to their destination takes place in a workingg group, chaired by Major General Morillon, Commander Bosnia-Herzegovina Command. Additionally, negotiations between the United Nations convoy commanders and local Bosnian military commanders, to take account of specific local conditions, take place if required as the convoy proceeds towards its destination.

  Boards of Inquiry
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to release military board of inquiry reports to next of kin.
  612
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Service board of inquiry reports are internal documents relating to inquiries held in private. Their content is often technical and complex, and is likely to include specific description of the conduct of named service personnel in the incident under investigation including that of the deceased where the board of inquiry investigates a fatal accident.

  In view of our obligations to the deceased and to their families, it would not be appropriate to make such documents widely available. We do, however, recognise the special position of next of kin and in future there will be a general presumption that, subject to the essential minimum of security requirements, such reports will be made available to them wherever possible, should they so request. This change of practice is in line with the Government's general policy towards greater openness. It also reflects our genuine concern to ensure that next of kin are treated in as sympathetic and helpful a manner as possible.

EMPLOYMENT

  Deaths (Building Sites)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average fine imposed on negligent employers in respect of deaths occurring on building sites over the last five years for which records have been maintained.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many deaths have occurred on building and construction sites over the last five years; and how many custodial sentences have been given to negligent employers in respect of these deaths.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information for Great Britain is provided in the table. Data for the latest year commencing 1 April 1991 is not yet available.

  Table: Fatal injuries in the construction industry reported to enforcement authorities 1986–87–1990–911

  Year

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Members of public

  Total

  1986–87

  99

  26

  14

  139

  1987–88

  103

  40

  15

  158

  1988–89

  101

  36

  14

  151

  1989–90

  100

  54

  11

  165

  1990–91

  96

  28

  9

  133

  Total

  499

  184

  63

  746

  1 Years commencing 1 April.

  The courts can impose a custodial sentence for a range of offences under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. The offence need not have resulted in a fatality or injury; the penalty of imprisonment is available regardless of the outcome. However, only one custodial sentence has been given within the last five years. It was not connected with the construction industry.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the number of(a) factory inspectors, (b) agricultural inspectors, (c) doctors and (d) nurses in the Health and Safety Executive area offices in (i) the Wales and south-west region and (ii) the home counties region in each year since 1978.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  (a) The number of Health and Safety (HSE) factory inspectors employed in Wales and the south-west region and home counties region in each year since 1978 was as follows:

  (i)Wales and South-West

  (ii) Home Counties

  1978

  61

  70·0

  1979

  67

  79·0

  1980

  65

  80·5

  1981

  61

  74·5

  1982

  57

  74·0

  1983

  50

  72·0

  1984

  49

  73·0

  1985

  49

  72·5

  1986

  50

  75·5

  1987

  53

  73·5

  1988

  50

  66·5

  1989

  50

  67·0

  1990

  57

  69·5

  1991

  58

  70·5

  1992

  65

  83·5

  (b) The information available for the number of agricultural inspectors employed by HSE is as follows:

  (i) Wales and South-West region

  (ii) Home Counties region

  1985

  33

  31·0

  1986

  30

  34·0

  1987

  30

  29·0

  1988

  28

  27·0

  1989

  28

  27·0

  1990

  28

  27·0

  1991

  28

  28·5

  1992

  29

  33·0

  Note: Comparable figures are not available by these regions for earlier years because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (c) The information available for the number of doctors employed by HSE is as follows:

  (i) Wales and South-West region

  (ii) Home Counties region

  1985

  8·5

  5·0

  1986

  10·0

  4·5

  1987

  9·5

  5·5

  1988

  8·5

  5·0

  1989

  7·0

  6·0

  1990

  7·0

  6·5

  1991

  6·0

  8·0

  1992

  6·0

  6·5

  Note: Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by these regions because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  (d) The information available for the number of nurses employed by HSE is as follows:
  614

  (i) Wales and South-west region

  (ii) Home Counties region

  1985

  5·5

  4·0

  1986

  6·0

  4·0

  1987

  5·0

  2·0

  1988

  6·0

  4·0

  1989

  6·0

  4·0

  1990

  8·0

  2·5

  1991

  7·0

  3·5

  1992

  7·0

  4·0

  Notes:

  Comparable figures are not available for earlier years by these regions because of changes in the basis of compiling staffing statistics for the occupational group.

  Figures are for I April each year and show full-time equivalent staff.

  Radiological Emergencies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if she will provide regular updated information using non-technical language to the general public on the hazards of a potential radiological emergency in the United Kingdom;

  (2) if she will target information on the hazards of a potential radiological emergency to (a) pregnant women and (b) emergency service personnel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The "Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations", which transpose the requirements of EC directive 89/618/Euratom into national legislation, was laid before the House on 8 December 1992. These regulations will require employers who conduct undertakings from which a radiation emergency is reasonably forseeable to provide prescribed items of information to members of the public likely to be affected by any such emergency. This information needs to cover the likely emergencies that could arise, their consequencies and the planned health protection measures for members of the public. The information also needs to be made publicly available and regularly updated.

  The Health and Safety Executive is producing guidance on the regulations, particularly aimed at assisting those with duties under them. In additon to this, the Health and Safety Executive produced guidance in 1991 which gave advice to emergency services personnel on the control of radiation exposure in the event of a radiation emergency.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to promote a standard national warning system to be operated during peacetime radiological emergencies.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. In the event of an accident at a civil licenced nuclear site having potential radiological effects off-site, the emergency plan prepared by the site's operator and approved by the Health and Safety Executive requires the operator to alert and inform the police. They will inform people in the vicinity of the site. Others at a greater distance from the site will be kept informed by special announcements on local radio and television.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to extend the detailed planning arrangements for reference accidents for the different stages of the nuclear fuel cycle to cover larger accidents.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have been asked to reply.
  615
  No. I consider that the present arrangements are adequate. At each major installation, detailed emergency planning is based on the worst nuclear accident that is reasonably foreseeable, known as the reference accident. These plans form the basis for an extended response in the very unlikely event that a more severe accident should occur.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were employed in the textile industry, the clothing industry and the mining industry in the east midlands in each year since 1980.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The available information on regional employment for the industries requested is from the censuses of employment taken in 1981, 1984, 1987 and 1989. Data for the east midlands can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library, subject to the confidentiality restrictions of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will list the highest level of unemployment recorded in each of the three travel-to-work areas covered by the Selby district for each year since 1986.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 173, how many people aged 16 and 17 years in the Carlisle travel-to-work area are not in employment, not on a youth training scheme and not in full-time education.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In October 1992, there were 18 unemployed claimants aged 16 and 17 years in Carlisle travel-to-work area.

  Changes to the benefit regulations in September 1988 coincided with the extension of a guaranteed youth training scheme (now youth training) place to all those aged under 18 not in full-time education or employment, which meant that those who declined an offer of a YTS place were no longer entitled to benefit. However, there are still a small number of under 18-year-olds entitled to benefit due to special circumstances, such as severe hardship or by virtue of their being orphans.

  Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest information she has about the operating surplus which has been accumulated for each training and enterprise council for each region and for Great Britain as a whole on(a) youth training including training credits, (b) employment training, (c) employment action, and (d) business support and business start up; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is unable to respond on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales who now have responsibility for the delivery of programmes through local enterprise councils in Scotland and training and enterprise councils in Wales.
  616
  Training and enterprise councils in England are required, under the terms of the training and enterprise council operating agreement, to produce audited accounts within four months of the end of the financial year.

  These accounts reveal the total operating surplus as at the end of the financial year and on a cumulative basis; however, this information is not published by programme block.

  The accounts for the financial year ending 31 March 1992 are now in the public domain and available from individual training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is her policy that training and enterprise councils shall pass on to training providers the cash to pay allowances to trainees in advance of the relevant pay day or within seven days of those costs falling on the training providers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) are responsible for the funding arrangements which they have with their providers. It is for these two parties to agree such arrangements.

  Disabled Trainees
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make it her policy to allow training and enterprise councils to utilise a wider range of performance indicators for disabled trainees than those currently suggested within the output-relating funding arrangements.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Training and enterprise councils already have the flexibility to recognise in their contracts with providers outputs additional to those for which they receive funding from the Department.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 1 December to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short),Official Report, column 172, if she will list those organisations or individuals whose representations she has received supporting abolition of the wages councils, and those who oppose the proposal.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Representations are treated on the basis that they have been offered "in confidence".

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates her Department has made of changes in wage levels in industries covered by wages councils as a result of their abolition.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The abolition of the wages councils will allow wages to reflect labour market conditions and the ability of companies to pay. Since 1986, when young people were removed from the minimum rates set by wages councils, their average earnings have continued to rise in real terms.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to her answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 54, if she will list the wages councils in whose areas of competence a prosecution was brought for each of the lowest levels of payment in each region in each year since 1986.
  617
  Mr Michael Forsyth
  The information is listed in the table.

  Divisions

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·48 RF

  —

  South East

  0·88 NF

  1·60 RF

  1·29 HU

  1·50 RF

  1·42 HU

  —

  —

  Eastern

  1·15 HU

  —

  1·23 RF

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  —

  —

  1·55 RF

  1·60 UPR

  1·74 RF

  2·18 HU

  1·87 RF

  Midlands

  —

  1·375 NF

  1·20 RF

  2·04 RF

  —

  —

  2·30 LR

  North West

  —

  1·60 RF

  1·75 RF

  —

  —

  1·50 RF

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  —

  1·92 RF

  2·19 RF

  2·00 RF not

  1·50 RF

  1·70 RF

  Northern

  —

  —

  —

  1·91 NF

  available RF

  1·25 RF

  2·00 RF

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·48 RF

  1·60 LR

  Key to Wages Council names.

  HU = Hairdressing Undertaking.

  LR = Licensed Residential Establishment and Licensed Restaurants.

  NF = Retail Trades (Non-food).

  RF = Retail Food and Allied Trades.

  UPR = Unlicensed Place of Refreshement.

  New Opportunities for Women Initiative
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what moneys have been deployed by way of the European Community's new opportunities for women initiative under article 11 of Council regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in (i) 1991 and (ii) so far this year; what kind of employment and training programmes were funded in this way; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of £6,369,996 has been made available to Great Britain under the European Community initiative NOW for the period 1991 to 1993. The amount committed to successful Scottish projects was £999,411, with one project in Strathclyde of £142,336. The allocation of funds has been made over the life of the programme, rather than on a calendar-year basis.

  All the projects aim to help women to take full advantage on equal terms of economic growth and technological development through the funding of transnational partnerships between organisations in two or more member states.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what moneys have been deployed by way of the European Community's NOW initiative under article 11 of Council regulation (EEC) No. 4253/88 in England and Wales in(a) 1991 and (b) so far this year; what kind of employment and training programmes were funded in this way; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A total of £6,369,996 has been made available to Great Britain under the European Community initiative NOW for the period 1991 to 1993. The amount committed to successful projects in England and Wales was £5,260,435. The allocation of funds has been made over the life of the programme, rather than on a calendar-year basis.

  All the projects aim to help women to take full advantage on equal terms of economic growth and technological development through the funding of transnational partnerships between organisations in two or more member states.

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Duncan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the outcome of the meeting on 3 December of the Social Affairs Council in Brussels; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Social Affairs Council had a useful meeting on 3 December, adapting a number of instruments and making good progress on others.

  The Council adopted a wide-ranging resolution concerned with the serious and deteriorating problem of unemployment throughout the Community. The resolution emphasised the importance of achieving sound economic growth and the conditions necessary for the creation and growth of businesses. The resolution underlined the importance of effective labour market measures—in particular, quality employment services for those looking for a job and training which is geared to the needs of the labour market. The resolution identified various ways in which the Council and European Commission would continue to give high priority to the issue of unemployment, including in the forthcoming review of the European social fund. This resolution flows from the employment initiative launched by the United Kingdom presidency and was warmly welcomed by the Council.

  Other useful measures agreed at the Council include a health and safety directive concerned with extractive industries, a resolution to promote the acceptance of vocational qualifications across the Community, and conclusions on the importance of ensuring timely and fully effective implementation and enforcement of EC social directives throughout the Community.

  In discussion, progress was made on a range of further proposals in the social area including the HELIOS programme for disabled people, the directive on subcontracted workers, and instruments concerned with the free movement of labour and with health and safety at work.

  The working time directive was also discussed. However, the directive continues to pose significant difficulties for a number of member states and it was not possible for progress to be made on this instrument.

  This meeting of the Council formed an important part of the aim of the United Kingdom presidency to make

  619
  sensible progress on the EC social dimension, in ways which directly affect for the better the lives of individual citizens in the Community.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Social Affairs Council on 3 December; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith) today.

SCOTLAND

  Health Spending
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the planned spending on health for 1993–94 will come from savings not yet specified.

  Mr. Stewart
  The expenditure plans for health announced recently by my right hon. Friend represents the cash resources he has made available to the NHS in Scotland. However, we encourage health boards to seek to finance further improvements to patient services from efficiency savings.

  Ozone Depletion
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many portable halon fire extinguishers are contained within his Department's buildings; and what measures are being taken to ensure their recycling and replacement;

  (2) what measures have been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances in use by his Department identified as controlled waste under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 do not reach the atmosphere:

  (3) how many chlorofluorocarbon domestic fridges are contained within his Department's buildings;

  (4) what targets have been set for the recycling of ozone-depleting chemicals within his Department's buildings;

  (5) what is the quantity of ozone-depleting substances recycled within his Department and returned to the manufacturer;

  (6) by what date his Department's use of ozone-depleting chemicals will conform to EC regulations on limits on these chemicals;

  (7) how much funding has been allocated or spent to deal specifically with measures to reduce his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances;

  (8) what action has been taken to ensure that ozone-destroying substances consumed by his Department are identified as controlled wastes when they are no longer in use;

  (9) if he will provide details from the maintenance and servicing record of the quantity and type of ozone-destroying chemicals used annually in his Department's refrigeration and air conditioning equipment for servicing and in leakages; and what proportion is removed for recycling;

  (10) how many chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochloro-fluorocarbon installations are contained within his Department's buildings;
  620
  (11) how many refrigeration and air conditioning systems in his Department are equipped with automatic leak detection systems;

  (12) what proportion of his Department's consumption of ozone-depleting substances becomes controlled waste in terms of section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

  (13) what guidance has been sought and received on alternatives or substitutes to the ozone-destroying chemicals in use by his Department;

  (14) which current uses of ozone-depleting chemicals by his Department are considered essential.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 November]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as the necessary information has been collated.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available figures for his Department's total purchase of CFCs and HCFCs.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 19 November]: The information required could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants are employed by his Department(a) in London, (b) in Edinburgh and (c) elsewhere.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: At 30 November 1992 the number of civil servants employed by the Scottish Office, excluding the Scottish prison service, was 6,427 of whom 39 were located in London, 4,850 in the Edinburgh area and 1,538 elsewhere.

  Schools (Disciplinary Proceedings)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what role his Department has in any disciplinary proceedings in locally or directly managed schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: Responsibility for teacher discipline in Scotland lies with education authorities, the managers of grant-aided and independent schools and, in respect of professional misconduct, the General Teaching Council for Scotland.

  Prisons
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred to date by the Scottish Office in undertaking the review of the prison estate announced in 1990; and when he expects a report to be published.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The review of the prisons estate in Scotland, which was completed earlier this year, was undertaken by officials from the Scottish Office and the Scottish prison service. It would be impractical to separate and quantify this part of their duties in expenditure terms. The results of this work are not intended to be published, but they will be of assistance in developing a strategy for the prisons estate which will make the most effective use of the increased level of funding for the Scottish prison service announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 2 December.
  621
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many qualified prison staff were employed at each Scottish prison at the latest available date; and if he will show this as a percentage of the recommended complement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: The complements and staff in post on 1 December 1992 for each establishment in the Scottish prison service are given in the table.

  Establishment

  Complement 1992–93

  Staff in post

  Percentage

  Aberdeen

  130

  137

  105·4

  Barlinnie

  532

  543

  102·1

  Barlinnie Special Unit

  19

  19

  100·0

  Castle Huntly

  76

  74

  97·4

  Cornton Vale

  190

  193

  101·6

  Dumfries

  144

  147

  102·1

  Dungavel

  73

  70

  95·9

  Edinburgh

  415

  407

  98·1

  Friarton

  53

  53

  100·0

  Glenochil

  439

  429

  97·7

  Greenock

  162

  160

  98·8

  Inverness

  84

  89

  106·0

  Longriggend

  159

  162

  101·9

  Low Moss

  147

  142

  96·6

  Noranside

  73

  72

  98·6

  Penninghame

  38

  37

  97·4

  Perth

  392

  384

  98·0

  Peterhead

  255

  250

  98·0

  Polmont

  309

  307

  99·4

  Shotts

  402

  396

  98·5

  Shotts Unit

  26

  26

  100·0

  TOTAL

  4,118

  4,097

  99·5

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred to date by the Scottish Office in connection with proposals for privatisation, market testing and contracting-out in the Scottish prison service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December]: The best estimate of cost to date, including staff time and consultancy fees, in connection with the market-testing programme for 1992–93 in the Scottish prison service is approximately £50,000.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what impact the securing of objective 1 status for the highlands and islands to EC structural funding would have upon the funding package of the bridge to Skye; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 7 December]: The level and scope of future structural fund support for the highlands and islands will be dependent on the outcome of negotiations on the future of the Community and the reform of the structural funds dues to be implemented on 1 January 1994. I cannot anticipate what view might be taken under the revised regulations of an application for assistance towards the cost of constructing the bridge to Skye.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the application to other potential commercial operators of a prohibition 622
  similar to that imposed upon Caledonian MacBrayne in running a vehicle-carrying ferry in competition with the Skye bridge once complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December]: My right hon. Friend has no power to prevent a private operator from providing such a service. Any private operator would, of course, require to satisfy the appropriate certification requirements for ferry operators.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations or advice he has received from the European Commission concerning sanctuaries in the vicinity of Kyle of Lochalsh, in the light of the construction of the bridge to Skye; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December]: There have been no representations or advice received by my right hon. Friend from the European Commission concerning sanctuaries in the vicinity of Kyle of Lochalsh.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers are now involved in detective work relating to Lockerbie and Pan AM 103.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 December 1992]: There are currently five officers of the Dumfries and Galloway constabulary engaged in work relating to the Lockerbie investigation.

  Defence Initiative
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the Scottish defence initiative with specific regard to the funds available for this purpose to Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 3 December 1992]: Scottish Enterprise announced on 3 September this year details of a three-year strategy to help companies adjust to falling defence orders, diversify into other markets and compete more effectively with other European contractors for remaining defence work. Based on an in-depth analysis of the Scottish defence sector, the strategy represents a significant step forward in helping companies respond to rapidly changing defence markets.

  It is for Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies to determine the priority and resources to be allocated to measures arising out of the initiative. Scottish Enterprise, however, attaches high priority to the initiative and measures associated with it; and it is likely, therefore, that proposals arising out of the initiative included in local enterprise companies' business plans will be given favourable consideration by Scottish Enterprise in reaching its decisions about funding support.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Scrapie
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in considering the application by Dr. Narang and Professor Oxford to
  623
  investigate the single-stranded DNA of scrapie, he will make it his policy that persons involved in doing similar research within his own Department do not form part of the application evaluation team.

  Mr. Soames
  No, but the normal requirements of confidentiality and impartiality will be followed in this case as in all other proposals for ministry support.

  Canthaxanthin
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive reports from departmental advisory committees relating to canthaxanthin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is not under consideration by departmental committees. The position is that the latest scientific data are currently being evaluated by the EC Scientific Committee for Food. I have instructed officials to keep in touch with developments.

  Orchards
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will state, in tabular form, the amount granted for the grubbing-up of apple orchards in each of the last five years under the apple orchard grubbing-up scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proportion of the orchards grubbed-up, aided by his Department's apple orchard grubbing-up scheme, were (a) culinary and dessert apples and (b) cider apples; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what assessment of landscape and wildlife is made before the granting of aid under his Department's apple orchard grubbing-up scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what mechanisms are in place to avoid conflicts of interest between his Department's apple orchard grubbing-up scheme and the Countryside Commission funded scheme providing incentives for replanting of traditional orchards in Somerset; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) if he will conduct a departmental inquiry into the provision of grant aid for the grubbing-up of apple orchards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The apple orchard grubbing-up grant scheme opened to growers in February 1991. The final date for submission of applications was, 1 December 1992. To the end of September 1992, the latest date for which figures are available, grant of £1·6 million had been paid. All orchards grubbed-up under the scheme were of culinary and dessert apples. Cider apple orchards are not eligible for grant. The EC rules for the scheme do not permit member states to make eligibility for grant conditional upon an assessment of landscape and wildlife but applicants whose orchards are in a site of special scientific interest must consult the Nature Conservancy Council before grubbing-up. Applicants with orchards in nitrate sensitive areas or environmentally sensitive areas are

  North sea: quotas for the United Kingdom

  Stock

  Area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Herring

  IIa,IVa,IVb

  75,989

  67,150

  65,930

  61,090

  Herring

  IVc,VIId

  2,000

  2,050

  4,230

  3,980

  Sprat1

  IIa,IV

  n/a

  1,500

  1,500

  1,500

  Cod

  IIa,IV

  55,800

  45,857

  43,570

  43,220

  624
  recommended to seek the advice of the NSA or ESA project officer before making an application for grant. It is standard MAFF practice for policies such as this to be evaluated.

  There is no conflict between this scheme and the Countryside Commission's scheme which have quite different objectives. The apple orchard grubbing-up scheme is aimed at reducing over production of culinary and dessert apples in the Community. Grant is therefore limited to young, productive, commercial orchards with a 15-year restriction on replanting. The Countryside Commission's scheme is concerned with encouraging the conservation of old, traditional orchards and apple varieties.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants from his Department have been relocated from London to other parts of the United Kingdom(a) in the last five years and (b) in the last 10 years; and to where they were relocated.

  Mr. Curry
  Apart from staff movements that occur routinely within any Department with a large regional organisation, over the past five years some 202 departmental posts have been relocated from London, of which 44 went to Guildford, 42 to Exeter, 19 to Norwich, 14 to Gloucester, 14 to Alnwick and 69 to Oxford. In the preceding five years, four London posts were moved to Alnwick.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend the protection and designation of environmentally sensitive areas to less favoured areas.

  Mr. Curry
  Environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) have already been designated in four parts of the English less favoured areas: the north Peak, Pennine dales, Shropshire borders (Clun) and west Penwith. In January of next year we plan to launch new ESAs in the less favoured areas of Exmoor, the Lake district and south west Peak. We also plan to hold consultations on further new ESAs for Dartmoor and the Shropshire hills, which we hope to introduce in the following winter.

  Fish
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the quota for each species of fish in each of the British fishing grounds for each of the last four years.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested, reflecting all quota exchanges made during each year, is set out in the following tables.
  625

  Stock

  Area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Cod

  IIb

  1,480

  670

  910

  1,270

  Haddock

  IIa,IV

  55,541

  36,480

  37,115

  42,640

  Saithe

  IIa,III,IV

  14,910

  12,136

  11,836

  9,820

  Whiting

  IIa,IV

  44,040

  29,260

  34,452

  31,370

  Hake

  IIa,IV

  380

  420

  420

  430

  Mackerel

  IIa,III,IV

  710

  1,000

  1,530

  1,750

  Plaice

  IIa,IV

  26,479

  31,597

  31,430

  48,030

  Sole

  IIa,IV

  825

  1,670

  1,830

  1,070

  1No allocation between Member States of EC availability in 1989. In 1990–92 United Kingdom fishermen had access to quota and also to EC availability not allocated specifically to Member States.

  West of Scotland: Quotas for the United Kingdom

  Stock

  Area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Herring

  Vb, VIa(N), VI

  40,430

  40,430

  33,320

  33,320

  Herring

  VIa (Clyde)

  3,200

  2,600

  2,900

  2,300

  Cod

  Vb, VI

  9,700

  8,375

  8,330

  6,915

  Haddock

  Vb, VI

  28,210

  19,385

  12,250

  9,985

  Saithe

  Vb, VI

  5,310

  5,130

  4,405

  3,965

  Pollack

  Vb, VI

  340

  400

  400

  400

  Whiting

  Vb, VI

  9,400

  6,775

  5,550

  4,835

  Mackerel

  II, Vb, VI, VII

  189,581

  191,030

  197,630

  234,950

  Plaice

  Vb, VI

  1,210

  1,210

  1,460

  1,460

  Sole

  Vb, VI

  20

  25

  30

  30

  Megrim

  Vb, VI

  1,678

  1,618

  1,520

  1,520

  Anglerfish

  Vb, VI

  3,370

  3,335

  3,230

  2,650

  Nephrops

  Vb, VI

  15,620

  15,620

  13,185

  12,000

  Area VII (Channel and Irish Sea): quotas for the United Kingdom

  Stock

  Area

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Herring

  VIIa

  4,440

  5,180

  4,440

  5,180

  Herring

  VIIef

  250

  250

  250

  500

  Herring

  VIIg-k

  20

  20

  0

  30

  Sprat

  VIIde

  7,140

  7,140

  7,140

  6,300

  Cod

  VII (ex VIIa)

  2,250

  2,290

  1,960

  1,660

  Cod

  VIIa

  6,500

  7,330

  3,765

  3,355

  Haddock

  VII

  600

  730

  600

  600

  Saithe

  VII

  2,150

  2,150

  2,150

  2,150

  Pollack

  VII

  2,390

  2,440

  2,440

  2,440

  Whiting

  VII (ex VIIa)

  2,160

  2,700

  2,700

  2,360

  Whiting

  VIIa

  9,330

  7,395

  4,183

  3,865

  Hake

  Vb, VI, VII

  6,260

  6,671

  7,150

  6,960

  Plaice

  VIIa

  3,050

  2,613

  2,370

  1,840

  Plaice

  VIIde

  3,400

  3,110

  3,110

  2,790

  Plaice

  VIIfg

  590

  450

  450

  350

  Plaice

  VIIhjk

  435

  435

  435

  170

  Sole

  VIIa

  625

  589

  612

  295

  Sole

  VIId

  780

  740

  820

  675

  Sole

  VIIe

  590

  530

  473

  470

  Sole

  VIIfg

  590

  450

  450

  350

  Sole

  VIIhjk

  240

  215

  235

  120

  Megrim

  VII

  2,240

  2,280

  2,280

  2,280

  Anglerfish

  VII

  6,340

  6,340

  6,280

  5,950

  Nephrops

  VII

  8,530

  8,530

  6,785

  6,565

  Area =zones used by the International Council of the Exploration of the Seas. A map of these is attached to the Explanatory Memorandum dated 10 December 1991 setting out the TACs and Quota proposals for 1992.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forms of grant aiding of abattoirs are permitted under EC regulatory requirements.

  Mr. Soames
  The long-standing system of EC grants for projects for the marketing and processing of agricultural 626
  produce, which did not apply to slaughterhouses, closed on 30 September 1992. There is currently no replacement EC scheme.

  Compliance with EC slaughterhouse standards has never brought with it any guarantee of help to defray the costs involved. Nor, though it is quite common for new statutory standards to be introduced, is it usual for grant aid to be provided to enable them to be achieved. The provision of such aid would be quite unfair on those who have already made the commitment of there own funds to come up to standard or those who have maintained their premises to comply with existing GB legislation and will have to do little to comply with the new rules.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of(a) the capacity of slaughtering facilities in the United Kingdom, (b) the extent to which the capacity of slaughtering facilities in the United Kingdom meets the demand for such activities and (c) the extent to which the capacity for slaughtering in the United Kingdom meets the requirements of small butchers to select livestock for slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  The Meat and Livestock Commission estimates the theoretical Great Britain slaughter capacity after 1992 will be nearly 300,000 livestock units a week, compared with average weekly slaughterings in 1990–91 of fewer than 200,000 livestock units.

  Where demand exists for particular types of slaughtering facilities, the market will no doubt ensure that this is met.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what EC mechanisms exist to ensure that all EC countries apply the regulations relating to abattoirs consistently; and what differences he has identified between the United Kingdom's approach to the use of veterinary personnel for inspection in abattoirs and that adopted by other EC countries.

  Mr. Soames
  All member states have to notify the Commission when and how they have implemented EC directives. In the red meat sector the Commission has a veterinary inspectorate which visits each member state regularly to ensure that the EC legislation is being properly applied.

  The United Kingdom has traditionally made less use of veterinary personnel for food hygiene work than most other member states. The Government consider that veterinary surgeons have an important role at abattoirs in the protection of human and animal health, and therefore accepted the requirements in the EC Fresh Meat Directive 91/497 for all abattoirs to be supervised by a veterinary surgeon and for all animals to undergo veterinary ante-mortem inspection. This is already the position in

  627
  most other member states, many of which also use qualified veterinary surgeons for post-mortem inspection which will normally continue to be done by meat inspectors in this country.

  The United Kingdom has successfully resisted EC proposals for compulsory veterinary supervision of meat products plants.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) to what extent the welfare of casualty livestock being transported is taken into account in the implementation of EC regulations on abattoir standards;

  (2) to what extent animal welfare considerations have been taken into account in determining implementation of EC regulations relating to abattoir standards.

  Mr. Soames
  The structural and handling requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 take account of the need to protect the welfare of animals. The requirement for veterinary ante-mortem inspection of all animals post-1992 will provide further safeguards.

  Casualty animals must receive speedy and compassionate treatment. No sick or injured animal should be transported at all if to do so would cause it unnecessary pain or suffering. Under the Fresh Meat Regulations all slaughterhouses have to have facilities to isolate animals which are diseased or injured or suspected of being diseased or injured. I am aware, however, that some large slaughterhouses may be reluctant to take in casualties and I will monitor the situation closely next year.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission on derogation for small abattoirs to be permitted to slaughter increased numbers of livestock.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister gave regarding safeguarding small traditional slaughterhouses on Wednesday, 3 December,Official Report, columns 223–24.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the need for the increased movement of animals for slaughter arising out of EC requirements on slaughterhouse specifications.

  Mr. Soames
  None. There is no evidence that farmers always send animals to the nearest slaughterhouse and, of course, many animals go for slaughter via livestock markets.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the action he is taking to avoid damage to health through the use of certain organo-phosphorus sheep dips.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 (COSHH) apply to sheep dipping operations. They are enforced on farms by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspectors. During visits to farms, HSE inspectors
  628
  draw attention to specific legal requirements and give advice and guidance on the precautions to be taken to prevent risks to health. Enforcement action is taken where necessary.

  HSE has published a leaflet entitled "Sheep dipping: Protect your health". The leaflet provides guidance to farmers on compliance with COSHH when engaged in sheep dipping operations. It warns of the hazards of sheep dips and sets out the precautions to be taken before, during and after dipping.

HEALTH

  Local Community Hospitals
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what encouragement she can give to purchasers and providers within the health service to promote and sustain local community hospitals in rural areas.

  Mr. Sackville
  Both purchasers and providers now have an unprecedented opportunity to tailor health services to meet local needs. National health service trusts, in particular, have a greater freedom over day-to-day operational matters and can be more responsive to patients. Health authorities are in a better position to focus on assessing the health needs and preferences of the local population and securing services to meet those needs and preferences.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many death certificates mentioned smoking in 1979 and in the most recent year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Reliable information on this has not been available but, from next year, we hope that new procedures on death certification may produce more usable information.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on patients' waiting times between referral and initial out-patient consultations.

  Mr. Sackville
  Under the patients charter, health authorities are required to publish information on the local standards for first out-patient appointments and on performance against standards. Regional health authorities have been asked to set targets to build on this progress for 1993–94.

  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress she expects to make in reducing waiting times under the patients charter.

  Mr. Sackville
  From April 1993, there will be a new and additional patients charter guarantee of a maximum wait of 18 months for a hip or knee replacement or a cataract operation. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced that regions would be asked to set targets for waiting time for first out-patient appointments.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the latest figure for waiting lists.
  629
  Mr. Sackville
  On 11 November, I announced provisional waiting time figures for September which showed that the number of patients waiting over a year fell by 3·6 per cent. over the previous quarter.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes she is considering to the consultation procedure relating to the creation of NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The procedure for consulting community health councils and other appropriate bodies about establishing a national health service trust is laid down in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I am not considering any changes to that procedure.

  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of interest she has received in the fourth wave of NHS trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have given permission to 121 units to prepare national health service trust applications in the fourth wave. If they are succesful, then 95 per cent. of the hospital and community health services budget will be spent through national health service trusts from April 1994. A list of 121 units has been placed in the Library.

  Addiction and Alcoholism
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her policy on addiction and alcoholism.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our policies for preventing and reducing the damage which the misuse of alcohol and drugs can inflict are carried through in a series of co-ordinated programmes which include those being developed under "The Health of the Nation" and "Caring for People", and initiatives such as the highly successful European drug prevention week.

  "The Health of the Nation"
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what nutritional recommendations her Department will make in order to meet the targets set out in "The Health of the Nation".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  As promised in the Government's White Paper, we have set up a nutrition task force, under the chairmanship of Dame Barbara Clayton, to recommend a co-ordinated action programme for meeting the nutrition targets.

  The task force will meet for the first time on 16 December.

  Fund-holding Practices
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of complementary therapists employed in(a) fund-holding general practitioner practices and (b) non-fund-holding general practitioner practices.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not held centrally. However, my hon. Friend will wish to know that it is open to all general practitioners to employ a wide range of staff, including complemenatary therapists, where appropriate, to assist them in the provision of general medical services.
  630
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress being made by fund-holding practices.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is clear that fund-holding practices are delivering real benefits to patients. This is reflected in the growing number of practices joining the scheme, which we expect will cover one in four of the population from April 1993.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase prescription charges; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Judgments are made each year about how finite health resources can be best targeted for maximum health gain. Prescription charges are one aspect of these considerations. Any announcements will be made at the appropriate time.

  Elderly Population
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give her best estimates of the impact of the increase in the elderly population on health expenditure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) earlier today.

  London's Health Services
  Ms. Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made in her consideration of the Tomlinson proposals of the effects on the waiting lists in south London if either St. Thomas's or Guy's hospital is closed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Tomlinson report notes that significant progress has been made in reducing waiting times in London. We shall ensure that the proposals arising from the report continue this trend.

  Ms. Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give an undertaking that no beds will be closed in London as a result of the Tomlinson inquiry before steps have been taken to improve community health services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms. Jackson) on 26 November, at column 811.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the current situation in Greenwich and Bexley regarding the processing of formal complaints regarding NHS dental treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Greenwich and Bexley local dental committee has decided to withdraw its co-operation from dental service committees which are the statutory local bodies set up to investigate complaints alleging that a dentist has breached his or her terms of service. The National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations require that dental service
  631
  committees include dental practitioners nominated by the local dental committee. Therefore, for the present, dental service committee investigations cannot be conducted for this family health services authority and three complaints are awaiting investigation. I very much regret that some dentists have decided to take action which disrupts this service to patients. I hope they will agree to resume co-operation.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that the service of salaried dentists will be made available throughout the family health services authority covering the Chorley constituency.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  An application for approval to appoint a salaried dentist to provide treatment in the Chorley and South Ribble area was received on 1 December. We are dealing with the application as a matter of priority.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the pay review body for dentists is due to commence and complete its investigations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 9 July 1992 that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield had been appointed to carry out a fundamental review of the dental remuneration system. Sir Kenneth has been asked to report before the end of the year.

  Patient Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of patients being treated as out-patients and in-patients in(a) England and (b) the north-west in 1975 and 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in the table.

  In-patients1

  Out-patients

  England

  1975

  4,975,750

  30,947,482

  1990–91

  7,524,192

  36,130,499

  North western region

  1975

  453,481

  2,737,230

  1990–91

  733,809

  3,482,235

  1 For 1975, the information refers to finished hospital stays (discharges and deaths). For 1990–91, the information refers to finished consultant episodes.

  A finished hospital stay is a discharge from a hospital—or a death in a hospital—or transfer to another hospital.A finished consultant episode is a completed period of care of a patient using a bed under the care of one consultant in a particular health authority, and will therefore tend to record a higher count. Finished consultant episodes includes a count of healthy live-born babies who were not counted as finished hospital stays.

  Osteopathy
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent consideration she has given to the regulation of osteopathy; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will make it her policy that patients who consult an osteopath should have a guarantee that their practitioner is trained to minimum standards of competence and is regulated by a governing body capable off enforcing an appropriate code of practice.
  632
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) on 3 December at column 320.

  Natural Medicines
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that the cost-effectiveness and value of natural medicines are known to health authorities, hospitals, doctors and community health organisations.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department sponsors work on cost-effectiveness of interventions in various universities and is currently funding a team of researchers from York and Leeds universities to produce a series of "effectiveness bulletins" to provide information for the national health service. Information bulletins are also produced by the medicines resources centre which provide data on the clinical impact of various pharmaceuticals and their costs of administration. This work is of recent origin and currently covers only a small proportion of interventions. So far, there has been no work on natural medicines, but it is not ruled out in the future.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how natural medicines will be incorporated into the strategy behind the Government White Paper, "The Health of the Nation".

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service, in partnership with voluntary and other organisations, may adopt a variety of approaches in meeting the targets set in the five key areas selected initially for development of "The Health of the Nation" strategy. Natural therapies may be incorporated in local programmes where they are considered appropriate and cost-effective.

  Unlicensed Medicines
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to strengthen laws relating to those who supply products that are not licensed as medicines but are advertised or labelled as such.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The enforcement unit of the Medicines Control Agency investigates all reports of an unlicensed product being supplied or promoted as a medicinal product, and appropriate action is taken to prevent the supply of such products.

  Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the hospitals in the west midlands region, indicating in respect of each(a) whether they provide neurosurgery and neurology and (b) whether they have the provision of magnetic resonance imaging.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir James Ackers, the chairman of West Midlands regional health authority, for details.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the revenue and capital allocations for regional health authorities in 1993–94.
  633
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Main revenue allocations for resident population are set out in table 1. These are provisional until Parliament has approved the relevant Supply estimate.

  Regions are to receive an average cash increase of 2·7 per cent., and I have decided that all regions should get a minimum increase of 0·4 per cent. above forecast inflation for the hospital and community health services of 1·9 per cent.

  This is mainly to enable all regions to make further progress towards resource equalisation between districts.

  I will announce capital cash limits for regional health authorities and the external financing limits of national health service trusts at a later date. Table 2 sets out the planning totals for each region. Regional health authorities and NHS Management Executive outposts will be giving me agreed proposals for the deployment of these planning totals between the regional capital programme and NHS trusts within each region.

  Table 1

  Regional Health Authority Allocations: 1993–94 Revenue Allocations for Resident Populations

  Allocation for Resident Populations (£000s)

  Percentage Increase Over Inflation

  Northern

  1,159,723

  1·03

  Yorkshire

  1,334,886

  0·67

  Trent

  1,672,751

  1·16

  East Anglia

  704,794

  1·18

  North West Thames

  1,320,749

  0·40

  North East Thames

  1,490,187

  0·40

  South East Thames

  1,439,276

  0·40

  South West Thames

  1,116,107

  0·40

  Wessex

  1,033,656

  1·48

  Oxford

  794,779

  0·86

  South Western

  1,185,708

  1·16

  West Midlands

  1,855,142

  1·00

  Mersey

  890,032

  0·58

  North Western

  1,505,427

  0·70

  England

  17,503,217

  0·80

  Table 2

  NHS regional main capital planning totals for 1993–94

  Region (both NHS trusts' and health authorities' main capital expenditure)

  Regional capital planning total (£ millions)

  Northern

  105

  Yorkshire

  122

  Trent

  154

  East Anglian

  67

  North West Thames

  102

  North East Thames

  115

  South East Thames

  119

  South West Thames

  91

  Wessex

  97

  Oxford

  75

  South Western

  111

  West Midlands

  170

  Mersey

  80

  North Western

  135

  Total

  1,543

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the financial allocation for each regional health authority for 1992–93 and 1993–94.
  634
  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows the 1992–93 revenue allocation for resident population of each regional health authority as announced on 5 December 1991 by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), at columns 262–63.

  In addition to initial allocations for resident population, regions are given cash limit additions for specific purposes throughout the year.

  For details of the regional allocation for 1993–94, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) today.

  1992–93 Allocation for resident population

  Region

  £ million

  Northern

  1,106·7

  Yorkshire

  1,276·4

  Trent

  1,593·6

  East Anglian

  669·2

  North West Thames

  1,260·0

  North East Thames

  1,448·2

  South East Thames

  1,383·1

  South West Thames

  1,078·2

  Wessex

  980·9

  Oxford

  758·2

  South Western

  1,28·0

  West Midlands

  1,766·6

  Mersey

  856·7

  North Western

  1,439·6

  All regions

  16,745·4

  Low Birth Weight
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the factors which result in low birth weight of children born to mothers resident in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in receipt of income support.

  Mr. Sackville
  Studies have shown that there are many factors associated with low birth weight. It is difficult to identify individual risk factors which may be significant in particular circumstances, for instance, women living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. However, the importance of a balanced diet for the general health and well-being of pregnant women and their children has long been recognised and for that reason, pregnant women receiving income support are entitled to free milk and supplementary vitamins. Other important considerations are timely access to antenatal care and advice from relevant health professionals and reducing smoking in pregnancy, the latter being a significant factor in weight differences between babies. As a priority for 1992–93, the chief executive of the National Health Service Management Executive has asked all health authorities to focus on measures to reduce smoking in pregnancy and to improve women's access to maternity services. A number of innovative schemes have been introduced by health authorities across the country to improve access to maternity care for women living in the inner city. A scheme in Mersey region, based at the Princes Park health centre in Toxteth, is directing services specifically at women living in bed-and-breakfast and hostel accommodation.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the work of the Audit Commission in respect of the national health service.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 extended the remit of the Audit Commission to include the external audit of health bodies. This encompasses the audit of financial regularity and studies aimed at improving the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which services are provided. The work of the commission is described more fully in its annual report, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Chairmen
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria she uses in selecting and appointing chairmen of national health service trusts and health authorities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Chairmen and members are appointed to national health service trusts and health authorities for the personal qualities, knowledge and skills they can bring to the post.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance will be issued to enforce the 1·5 per cent. pay rise ceiling she has set for NHS staff; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) on 23 November at column 505.

  Medical Complaints
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will take measures to speed up medical complaints procedures and make them more patient-friendly.

  Mr. Sackville
  The patients charter has given people the right to have any complaint about national health service services—whoever provides them—investigated and to receive a full and prompt written reply from the chief executive or the general manager.

  In addition, the recent extension of the patients charter into primary health care has set targets for family health services authorities to improve their performance in dealing with complaints about general medical services.

  Hib Vaccine
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the arrangements for general practitioners to call in children aged seven to 11 months in order for them to be vaccinated with haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine.

  Mr. Sackville
  Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib) immunisation was launched on 1 October this year as a major addition to the Government's programme for the prevention of childhood diseases. General practitioners were sent an information pack at the end of July, which explained the need for a phased schedule of immunisation to ensure that those children most at risk from invasive haemophilus disease—aged up to 12 months—were 636
  immunised first. In accordance with the schedule children aged between seven and 11 months are being called in for immunisation between October 1992 and March 1993. The objective is to immunise all children aged under four years by September 1993.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been inoculated with haemophilus influenzae type B since it was introudced between the ages of seven and 11 months; and how many such children have been refused such inoculation in the current year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the numbers of children immunised with Hib vaccine between the ages of seven and 11 months is not available. Arrangements have been made for all these children to be offered Hib vaccine in accordance with the call-up schedule provided for general practitioners and clinics. Two million doses of Hib vaccine had been made available nationally by the end of November.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent publicising the dangers of haemophilus influenzae to children between the ages of seven and 11 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health and the Health Education Authority have worked together in preparing publicity about haemophilus influenzae b (Hib) immunisation. Publicity is being directed at parents with children aged under four years with special emphasis on children aged under one year because these children are more vulnerable to the disease. Expenditure on television advertising, local radio campaigns, display advertisements in the mother and baby press, leaflets and posters will amount to £1·4 million in the current financial year.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine has been made available to general practitioners in Devon; and if she will make a statement on the rationing arrangements for haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine to doctors in Devon for inoculation of children aged seven to 11 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  The distribution of the two brands of haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine to the health districts in Devon for delivery to both general practitioners and clinics up to 30 November is set out. The number of doses of Act Hib required in each district were calculated according to a formula based on the local birth rate.

  Health district

  Act Hib (mainly for children below 12 months of age. These children receive 3 doses each.)

  Hib TITER (for children between 1 and 4 years of age. These children receive 1 dose each.)

  Doses

  Doses

  Exeter

  4,240

  1,350

  North Devon

  3,150

  2,270

  Plymouth

  10,460

  3,700

  Torbay

  3,860

  2,870

  A further delivery of the Act Hib vaccine, 3,000 doses for Exeter and 500 doses for Plymouth, was due to be made on 7 December.

  The orders that have been fulfilled and the amount planned for delivery over the coming months will be enough to enable all children in Devon under the age of

  637
  four to be immunised by September 1993. It is the responsibility of local health authorities to arrange equitable distribution of the vaccine they receive, according to the requirements of clinics and general practitioners, and to make any adjustments to the supply arrangements considered necessary.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the availability of haemophilus influenza type B vaccine; from where it is purchased; how much has been spent on it; and what problems have arisen in relation to distribution.

  Mr. Sackville
  The vaccine is supplied by two manufacturers, Merieux under the name "Act Hib", and Lederle/Praxis under the name "Hib TITER". In the first two months of the programme, 2 million doses were distributed. By March 1993, the number of doses distributed will have increased to 5 million—more than enough to cover all children aged under one year and to allow for the immunisation of many older children who would otherwise be called in at a later stage in the programme. The objective is to immunise all children under four years of age by September 1993. Expenditure so far has totalled £9 million, with further substantial payments to be made in this and future financial years. If there are any local problems on distribution, it is for the responsible health authority to take the necessary action to put matters right.

  Wellbury House
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice has been given to Hertfordshire social services department in relation to future steps to regulate activities at Wellbury house;

  (2) what assessment she has made of the suitability of conditions at Wellbury house for people under the age of 18 years to reside in the premises; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) what steps have been taken to register Wellbury house in Hertfordshire as a voluntary children's home; when application forms were received; what action she has taken; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is the responsibility of Hertfordshire county council to judge whether conditions at Wellbury house are suitable for children accommodated there. General guidance on the protection of the welfare of children has been issued to all local authorities.

  Ashworth Special Hospital
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her plans to review conditions at Ashworth special hospital.

  Mr. Yeo
  The report of the committee of inquiry into complaints about Ashworth hospital, chaired by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, was published on 5 August. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that we and the Special Hospitals Service Authority (SHSA) accepted the great majority of the report's recommendations, and set out the action being taken on the issues it raised.

  The finding of improper conduct and ill-treatment of patients by a number of staff were to be dealt with in accordance with the SHSA's disciplinary procedures. As a
  638
  result of these two of the staff concerned have now been dismissed, one has been demoted, two given final written warnings and one a first written warning. In five cases no action was taken following the disciplinary hearing and one case was not proceeded with.

  My right hon. Friend also stated that the SHSA were drawing up an action plan for implementing the agreed recommendations and that a task force was being formed at the hospital—with reinforcement from outside—to take immediate responsibility for carrying it out. We have approved the action plan which the SHSA submitted, as it was required to, at the end of August. The work of the task force is supervised by a steering committee comprising the chairman, vice-chairman and chief executive of the SHSA, which is submitting regular progress reports to me. We will be arranging an independent audit of the action taken on the Inquiry report during the course of next year.

  The inquiry reported on unacceptable literature being circulated at the hospital and two former senior police officers have been appointed to investigate this. To date, two members of staff have been suspended as a result of these investigations.

  My right hon.Friend also announced that we were forming a working group to consider the most effective provision of services for patients requiring psychiatric treatment in conditions of high security, and the relationship between such services and those provided within national health service regions and the prison service. This group, which is chaired by Dr. John Reed of the Department of Health, started work in October and is due to report by April next year.

  My right hon. Friend's statement made clear our concern about the findings of the Inquiry report about a number of aspects of the care and treatment provided at Ashworth hospital. It also recognised the excellent work which is done at Ashworth by many dedicated staff. The action we have taken, and which is continuing, demonstrates our commitment to support and develop this work while tackling the deficiencies revealed by the report and their underlying causes.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for every health authority in England(a) the total number and (b) the percentage of operating theatre sessions cancelled in 1991–92.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information at district health authority level for 1991–92 is not yet available. A summary booklet containing the information will be published early in the new year and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital Consultations
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of introducing job evaluation schemes for hospital consultations in the west midlands; and whether the work was awarded as a result of competitive tender.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This is a matter for West Midlands regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir James Ackers, the chairman of West Midlands RHA, for details.

  Codex Alimentarius Commission
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; and what discussions her Department has had with the commission.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is a subsidiary body of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. Membership is open to all member nations and associate members of the two organisations. The CAC aims to facilitate world food trade through agreed, harmonised standards with adequate protection for consumer health. CAC work is done through subsidiary committees which deal with particular commodities and general food issues, and through regional groupings for geographical areas.

  This Department plays a full and active part in the Committee on Food Hygiene and is currently drafting a revised text on general principles of food hygiene for that committee.

  The document "Introducing Codex Alimentarius" contains full details on the work of the CAC and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  NHS Supplies Authority
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the financial turnover for the National Health Service Supplies Authority in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement on its future operation.

  Nursing and midwifery staff by geographical area England—September 1987 to 1991 (wte) Excluding agency staff1

  September

  Regional health authorities

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  27,540

  27,770

  27,800

  27,310

  27,270

  Yorkshire

  30,300

  30,150

  30,120

  30,020

  29,460

  Trent

  37,970

  38,250

  38,100

  38,210

  37,950

  East Anglia

  15,750

  15,950

  16,150

  16,140

  15,730

  North West Thames

  26,800

  26,670

  26,810

  26,480

  26,480

  North East Thames

  32,410

  32,730

  32,890

  32,980

  32,750

  South East Thames

  29,650

  29,280

  29,350

  29,110

  28,280

  South West Thames

  23,250

  23,030

  22,940

  22,120

  21,590

  Wessex

  23,160

  23,620

  23,360

  23,690

  23,570

  Oxford

  17,090

  16,930

  16,950

  17,080

  16,820

  South Western

  27,360

  27,220

  27,150

  27,340

  27,030

  West Midlands

  42,910

  41,870

  42,130

  42,070

  41,300

  Mersey

  21,950

  22,110

  21,960

  21,090

  20,100

  North Western

  37,190

  37,490

  37,510

  36,990

  36,480

  London post graduate special health authorities

  4,570

  4,570

  4,820

  4,650

  5,270

  England total

  397,910

  397,650

  398,050

  395,360

  1392,200

  Source: Department of health HAP(STATS)B annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  Note: All figures are independently rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  1 The total for 1991 includes about 2,100 WTEs which are not included in the figures above. The corresponding shortfall for 1987–90 inclusive is much smaller.

  Agency nursing and midwifery staff working in the NHS by geographical area 1987–91 England at 30 September each year(wte)

  Regional health authorities

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Northern

  —2

  —3

  —3

  —2

  —3

  Yorkshire

  90

  180

  160

  120

  110

  Trent

  —3

  30

  150

  10

  130

  East Anglia

  220

  190

  190

  280

  240

  North West Thames

  990

  1,160

  1,540

  1,080

  710

  North East Thames

  1,900

  1,750

  1,530

  1,190

  910

  South East Thames

  1,130

  1,200

  1,250

  1,000

  430

  640
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The National Health Service Supplies Authority was established in October 1991 but has only assumed full operational responsibility for all supply matters with effect from 1 October 1992. Its annualised turnover for the current financial year is expected to be £510 million, plus an additional £3,000 million for goods and services procured on behalf of customers which are delivered and invoiced directly to them.

  NHS Supplies was set up:
  to provide a professional and responsive supplies service that meets both the present and future needs of its customers;
  to ensure the best value for money for every pound the NHS spends on goods and services; and
  to save its customers money that could be better spent on health care.
  The performance of NHS Supplies against targets agreed with the authority will be subject to continuing scrutiny by the NHS Management Executive.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give for each of the last five years for England and for each national health service region(a) the total number of whole-time equivalent nurses and midwives employed in the hospital and community health services on 30 September and (b) the total number of agency nurses and midwives working in the hospital and community health services on 30 September.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is given in the tables.

  Regional health authorities

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  South West Thames

  670

  740

  1,000

  950

  520

  Wessex1

  —2

  60

  40

  —3

  10

  Oxford

  90

  90

  100

  230

  180

  South Western

  60

  80

  190

  150

  70

  West Midlands

  280

  290

  410

  1,150

  370

  Mersey

  60

  80

  70

  90

  70

  North Western1

  60

  50

  110

  140

  90

  London Post Graduate Special Health Authorities

  560

  330

  500

  320

  90

  England Total

  6,130

  6,240

  7,230

  6,710

  3,930

  641
  Source: Department of Health HAP(STATS)B annual census of NHS non-medical manpower

  Note: All figures independently rounded to nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  1 Figures are unreliable.

  2 Less than 5.

  3 Nil or negligible.

  Limited List Prescribing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the savings which might accrue from the extensions to the limited list prescribing system which have been announced; and when it was made.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Savings will depend on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information the advisory committee which is to consider the new categories on the limited list has been given about the savings which it is hoped might be made by the Department through the extension of the limited list prescribing system.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the advisory committee which is to consider the new categories relating to the limited list prescribing system is able to recommend a nil entry under one or more category heading.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Yes.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whom she consulted about the definitions of the new categories which are to be considered in connection with the limited list prescribing system; and when that consultation took place.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The new categories reflect those used in the British National Formulary which are generally recognised by doctors and dentists and pharmacists.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies she conducted, and what criteria she used in assessing the results, in coming to an assessment on the impact on patients and other users of her decision to extend the limited list prescribing arrangements.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No such studies were necessary. Extending the scope of the selected list scheme to ten new therapeutic categories will not affect patients' or other users' ability to receive the medicines they need when they need them and for as long as they need them. As now, decisions on individual drugs will be taken on the basis of advice from the independent Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs comprising doctors, dentists and pharmacists appointed after consultation with relevant professional organisations. The drugs necessary to meet all clinical needs will remain available on NHS prescription.

  Community Care
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that education opportunities paid for by her Department for people 642
  returning to the community from long-stay institutions are not reduced when responsibility for funding further and continuing education is transferred from local authority control in April 1993; what plans she has in place to monitor such provision; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The establishment of the further education funding councils, from April 1993, and the transfer to them of some of the local education authorities' statutory duties to secure the provision of further education, has not changed local authorities duties towards disabled people under section 2(1)(c) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Local authorities have a clear duty under this Act to make arrangments for assisting a disabled person, who is ordinarily resident in their area, in taking advantage of educational opportunities available to him or her, if they are satisfied that it is necessary in order to meet that person's needs. Such assistance might, in appropriate cases, include the funding by the local authority of the personal care required to enable the student in question to pursue his or her studies. It is, of course, for the authority to decide in each case, what the individual's needs are, and how they are to be met.

  Prime responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Act rests with local authorities themselves, to ensure that their policies are compatible with their legal obligations. The Department receives regular returns on certain services provided by local authorities under the Act, as well as information from other sources including the social services inspectorate. We follow up specific cases, referred to the Department, where it is alleged that a local authority is in breech of its statutory duties.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning her requirement for local authorities to spend a fixed percentage of community care funding on independent sector provision after April.

  Mr. Yeo
  We have consulted widely on our proposals for funding community care. I received a number of representations on this particular point, all of which were carefully considered before the final decision was reached.

  Nutrition Task Force
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on(a) the establishment of her Department's nutritution task force, (b) its terms of reference, (c) its timetable for reporting and (d) the names of the members of the task force and their professional qualifications.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the membership of the nutrition task force on 7 December 1992. The terms of reference are to be agreed at its first meeting on 16 December 1992. We anticipate receiving the nutrition task force's report on the proposed action programme by late spring 1993, details will then be published. Further details are available in the Library (Department of Health press notice H92/438).

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to implement the catering guidelines of "The Health of the Nation" White Paper; and if she will make a statement.
  643
  Mr. Sackville
  The nutrition task force will consider the opportunities for the promotion of healthy eating. This will include issuing voluntary nutritional guidelines for catering establishments.

  NHS Surgery Costs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated average cost of NHS procedures for(a) total hip replacement, (b) total knee replacement, (c) coronary artery bypass grafting, (d) mitral/aortic valve replacement, (e) hernia repair, (f) stripping of varicose veins, (g) hysterectomy, (h) tonsillectomy, (i) cataract extraction/lens implant, (j) kidney transplant, (k) heart transplant and (l) heart/lung transplant.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. All estimates of average cost are at 1991–92 prices and inclusive of an allowance for capital charges. Estimates are not available for total knee replacement, stripping of varicose veins, and heart/lung transplant procedures.

  NHS procedure

  Estimated average cost

  (£-1991–92 prices)

  Hip Replacement

  3,810

  Coronary Artery by-pass graph

  5,870

  Heart Valve Replacement

  8,800

  Inguinal Hernia

  1,140

  Hysterectomy

  2,050

  Tonsillectomy

  590

  Cataract Extraction

  1,230

  Kidney Transplant

  13,050

  Heart Transplant

  26,400

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra patients are expected to be treated as a result of the financial settlement for the NHS in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  We expect an increase of at least 2·5 per cent. in hospital and community health service activity in the national health service in 1993–94. This corresponds to about 190,000 acute in-patients and day cases and an extra 1 million community nursing contacts with equivalent increases in other areas.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government plans to spend on the NHS in 1993–94; and what was spent in 1978–79.

  Mr. Sackville
  Government spending on the NHS in England is planned to be £29 billion in 1993–94, compared with £6·3 billion in 1978–79. This represents a real terms increase of over 59 per cent.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the level of current spending on the hospital and community health services for each NHS region and for the special health authorities, in each year since 1974–75(a) in cash terms, (b) adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator and (c) adjusted using the NHS pay and prices index.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 11 November 1992]: The information requested for the financial years 1974–75 to 1990–91 is shown in the table. Information for 1991–92 will be available shortly.
  644

  Total revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services (HCHS) 1974–75

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  146,761

  854,296

  714,204

  Yorkshire

  166,145

  967,130

  808,535

  Trent

  182,485

  1,062,245

  888,052

  East Anglian

  77,289

  449,899

  376,122

  North West Thames

  212,895

  1,239,262

  1,036,041

  North East Thames

  231,944

  1,350,146

  1,128,742

  South East Thames

  208,755

  1,215,163

  1,015,894

  South West Thames

  171,278

  997,009

  833,514

  Wessex

  117,059

  681,400

  569,661

  Oxford

  98,613

  574,026

  479,894

  South Western

  143,467

  835,121

  698,174

  West Midlands

  224,244

  1,305,324

  1,091,270

  Mersey

  130,351

  758,773

  634,345

  North Western

  196,021

  1,141,038

  953,924

  SHAs

  43,821

  255,082

  213,252

  Total

  2,351,128

  13,685,916

  11,441,623

  1975–76

  £000

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Regions

  Northern

  192,196

  868,534

  745,088

  Yorkshire

  216,894

  980,144

  840,835

  Trent

  244,361

  1,104,267

  947,317

  East Anglian

  103,253

  466,600

  400,282

  North West Thames

  276,796

  1,250,841

  1,073,058

  North East Thames

  298,422

  1,348,569

  1,156,896

  South East Thames

  279,572

  1,263,386

  1,083,820

  South West Thames

  220,010

  994,225

  852,915

  Wessex

  152,292

  688,208

  590,392

  Oxford

  129,757

  586,372

  503,030

  South Western

  188,419

  851,465

  730,446

  West Midlands

  297,457

  1,344,208

  1,153,155

  Mersey

  169,250

  764,841

  656,133

  North Western

  255,945

  1,156,615

  992,225

  SHAs

  56,548

  255,540

  219,220

  Total

  3,081,172

  13,923,816

  11,944,810

  1976–77

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  215,974

  857,633

  737,486

  Yorkshire

  249,753

  991,769

  852,832

  Trent

  283,301

  1,124,988

  967,388

  East Anglian

  119,672

  475,218

  408,644

  North West Thames

  308,533

  1,225,185

  1,053,548

  North East Thames

  338,128

  1,342,706

  1,154,606

  South East Thames

  321,373

  1,276,172

  1,097,392

  South West Thames

  247,062

  981,083

  843,643

  Wessex

  175,498

  696,903

  599,273

  Oxford

  148,581

  590,015

  507,360

  South Western

  215,618

  856,219

  736,271

  West Midlands

  339,911

  1,349,787

  1,160,694

  Mersey

  189,657

  753,128

  647,622

  North Western

  294,868

  1,170,921

  1,006,886

  SHAs

  64,423

  255,824

  219,985

  645

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Total

  3,512,352

  13,947,550

  11,993,628

  1977–78

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  242,429

  886,563

  728,140

  Yorkshire

  279,253

  1,021,228

  838,742

  Trent

  321,868

  1,177,071

  966,737

  East Anglian

  136,202

  498,091

  409,085

  North West Thames

  345,017

  1,261,727

  1,036,265

  North East Thames

  372,460

  1,362,086

  1,118,691

  South East Thames

  356,258

  1,302,836

  1,070,028

  South West Thames

  271,952

  994,528

  816,813

  Wessex

  198,111

  724,492

  595,030

  Oxford

  163,895

  599,364

  492,262

  South Western

  241,844

  884,424

  726,383

  West Midlands

  380,897

  1,392,940

  1,144,032

  Mersey

  213,117

  779,369

  640,101

  North Western

  335,239

  1,225,969

  1,006,897

  SHAs

  72,560

  265,352

  217,935

  Total

  3,931,102

  14,376,040

  11,807,143

  1978–79

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  277,406

  925,426

  751,437

  Yorkshire

  313,533

  1,045,946

  849,298

  Trent

  369,227

  1,231,741

  1,000,162

  East Anglian

  154,459

  515,275

  418,399

  North West Thames

  380,010

  1,267,713

  1,029,371

  North East Thames

  413,284

  1,378,715

  1,119,504

  South East Thames

  395,880

  1,320,656

  1,072,360

  South West Thames

  303,176

  1,011,395

  821,243

  Wessex

  223,569

  745,826

  605,604

  Oxford

  184,427

  615,248

  499,576

  South Western

  272,319

  908,456

  737,658

  West Midlands

  432,881

  1,444,091

  1,172,588

  Mersey

  238,074

  794,215

  644,895

  North Western

  382,627

  1,276,444

  1,036,460

  SHAs

  80,619

  268,945

  218,381

  Total

  4,421,491

  14,750,094

  11,976,935

  1979–80

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  337,997

  935,914

  784,684

  Yorkshire

  380,746

  1,054,286

  883,928

  Trent

  449,348

  1,244,245

  1,043,193

  East Anglian

  188,939

  523,172

  438,635

  North West Thames

  450,636

  1,247,811

  1,046,183

  North East Thames

  488,198

  1,351,820

  1,133,386

  South East Thames

  471,151

  1,304,617

  1,093,810

  South West Thames

  361,292

  1,000,418

  838,765

  Wessex

  271,164

  750,853

  629,526

  Oxford

  223,651

  619,290

  519,221

  South Western

  332,138

  919,690

  771,082

  West Midlands

  532,172

  1,473,584

  1,235,475

  Mersey

  287,489

  796,057

  667,426

  646

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  North Western

  463,250

  1,282,739

  1,075,467

  SHAs

  94,751

  262,366

  219,971

  Total

  5,332,922

  14,766,861

  12,380,752

  1980–81

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input Volume Terms

  Real Terms

  Northern

  437,025

  945,285

  857,417

  Yorkshire

  494,198

  1,068,950

  969,587

  Trent

  585,409

  1,266,240

  1,148,537

  East Anglian

  244,605

  529,081

  479,900

  North West Thames

  580,117

  1,254,793

  1,138,155

  North East Thames

  636,251

  1,376,211

  1,248,286

  South East Thames

  603,001

  1,304,291

  1,183,052

  South West Thames

  465,365

  1,006,584

  913,018

  Wessex

  349,377

  755,702

  685,457

  Oxford

  285,343

  617,197

  559,826

  South Western

  426,839

  923,253

  837,433

  West Midlands

  681,869

  1,474,883

  1,337,786

  Mersey

  368,928

  797,991

  723,815

  North Western

  603,630

  1,305,652

  1,184,286

  SHAs

  123,474

  267,074

  242,249

  Total

  6,885,431

  14,893,187

  13,508,802

  1981–82

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  482,670

  964,857

  863,632

  Yorkshire

  547,802

  1,095,056

  980,171

  Trent

  646,945

  1,293,243

  1,157,566

  East Anglian

  269,169

  538,069

  481,619

  North West Thames

  649,984

  1,299,318

  1,163,003

  North East Thames

  700,172

  1,399,644

  1,252,804

  South East Thames

  662,702

  1,324,741

  1,185,759

  South West Thames

  515,008

  1,029,501

  921,494

  Wessex

  389,027

  777,665

  696,078

  Oxford

  313,135

  625,957

  560,286

  South Western

  474,291

  948,108

  848,639

  West Midlands

  751,667

  1,502,582

  1,344,943

  Mersey

  407,417

  814,427

  728,983

  North Western

  679,828

  1,358,976

  1,216,403

  SHAs

  140,168

  280,196

  250,800

  Total

  7,629,985

  15,252,340

  13,652,180

  1982–83

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  520,838

  977,613

  869,982

  Yorkshire

  583,406

  1,095,053

  974,492

  Trent

  696,746

  1,307,792

  1,163,810

  East Anglian

  288,951

  542,361

  482,649

  North West Thames

  633,215

  1,188,545

  1,057,691

  North East Thames

  800,677

  1,502,871

  1,337,411

  South East Thames

  700,421

  1,314,690

  1,169,948

  South West Thames

  530,393

  995,548

  885,942

  Wessex

  418,407

  785,350

  698,886

  647

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Oxford

  334,669

  628,174

  559,014

  South Western

  507,281

  952,166

  847,337

  West Midlands

  809,722

  1,519,848

  1,352,519

  Mersey

  436,241

  818,824

  728,675

  North Western

  729,550

  1,369,365

  1,218,604

  SHAs

  150,712

  282,886

  251,742

  Total

  8,141,229

  15,281,087

  13,598,702

  1983–84

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  553,996

  989,437

  884,416

  Yorkshire

  619,586

  1,106,581

  989,126

  Trent

  742,437

  1,325,992

  1,185,249

  East Anglian

  312,485

  558,098

  498,860

  North West Thames

  665,435

  1,188,467

  1,062,320

  North East Thames

  841,130

  1,502,258

  1,342,805

  South East Thames

  739,438

  1,320,636

  1,180,461

  South West Thames

  559,102

  998,556

  892,567

  Wessex

  449,145

  802,173

  717,029

  Oxford

  352,838

  630,169

  563,281

  South Western

  540,430

  965,208

  862,759

  West Midlands

  861,251

  1,538,194

  1,374,927

  Mersey

  456,590

  815,470

  728,914

  North Western

  769,183

  1,373,761

  1,227,947

  SHAs

  162,311

  289,887

  259,118

  Total

  8,625,357

  15,404,888

  13,769,779

  1984–85

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  586,852

  990,606

  892,256

  Yorkshire

  657,579

  1,109,993

  999,790

  Trent

  795,285

  1,342,441

  1,209,159

  East Anglian

  335,302

  565,990

  509,797

  North West Thames

  701,170

  1,183,575

  1,066,066

  North East Thames

  881,327

  1,487,680

  1,339,978

  South East Thames

  772,108

  1,303,318

  1,173,921

  South West Thames

  586,260

  989,607

  891,356

  Wessex

  482,636

  814,690

  733,805

  Oxford

  381,948

  644,728

  580,718

  South Western

  571,018

  963,878

  868,181

  West Midlands

  919,255

  1,551,702

  1,397,644

  Mersey

  483,314

  815,834

  734,835

  North Western

  814,490

  1,374,859

  1,238,359

  SHAs

  166,310

  280,731

  252,859

  Total

  9,134,854

  15,419,634

  13,888,723

  1985–86

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  620,085

  995,236

  893,468

  Yorkshire

  699,526

  1,122,739

  1,007,933

  Trent

  843,156

  1,353,265

  1,214,887

  East Anglian

  358,247

  574,986

  516,191

  648

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  North West Thames

  728,848

  1,169,801

  1,050,183

  North East Thames

  914,188

  1,467,272

  1,317,235

  South East Thames

  807,525

  1,296,078

  1,163,547

  South West Thames

  608,276

  976,283

  876,453

  Wessex

  506,941

  813,640

  730,441

  Oxford

  402,374

  645,810

  579,773

  South Western

  603,266

  968,242

  869,234

  West Midlands

  973,915

  1,563,134

  1,403,295

  Mersey

  507,924

  815,218

  731,858

  North Western

  860,336

  1,380,839

  1,239,641

  SHAs

  174,792

  280,541

  251,854

  Total

  9,609,399

  15,423,085

  13,845,991

  1986–87

  £000s

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  664,666

  997,664

  927,196

  Yorkshire

  748,109

  1,122,912

  1,043,597

  Trent

  914,488

  1,372,646

  1,275,692

  East Anglian

  389,423

  584,524

  543,237

  North West Thames

  777,781

  1,167,449

  1,084,989

  North East Thames

  976,100

  1,465,126

  1,361,640

  South East Thames

  857,088

  1,286,489

  1,195,621

  South West Thames

  650,071

  975,757

  906,836

  Wessex

  549,152

  824,277

  766,056

  Oxford

  433,809

  651,147

  605,155

  South Western

  650,026

  975,689

  906,773

  West Midlands

  1,049,734

  1,575,651

  1,464,358

  Mersey

  542,821

  814,774

  757,224

  North Western

  922,352

  1,384,450

  1,286,663

  SHAs

  191,546

  287,511

  267,203

  Total

  10,317,166

  15,486,066

  14,392,240

  1987–88

  £000

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Regions

  Northern

  726,424

  1,005,371

  961,066

  Yorkshire

  817,426

  1,131,318

  1,081,463

  Trent

  1,009,393

  1,397,000

  1,335,437

  East Anglian

  431,278

  596,889

  570,585

  North West Thames

  832,775

  1,152,561

  1,101,770

  North East Thames

  1,048,946

  1,451,741

  1,387,766

  South East Thames

  928,872

  1,285,559

  1,228,907

  South West Thames

  744,435

  1,030,298

  984,895

  Wessex

  599,818

  830,148

  793,565

  Oxford

  478,889

  662,782

  633,575

  South Western

  710,039

  982,694

  939,389

  West Midlands

  1,149,328

  1,590,670

  1,520,572

  Mersey

  589,166

  815,406

  779,473

  North Western

  1,002,641

  1,387,655

  1,326,504

  SHAs

  207,281

  286,877

  274,235

  Total

  11,276,711

  15,606,968

  14,919,201

  649

  1988–89

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Real terms

  Northern

  802,662

  1,004,933

  990,332

  Yorkshire

  901,280

  1,128,403

  1,112,008

  Trent

  1,121,344

  1,403,923

  1,383,525

  East Anglian

  487,095

  609,843

  600,983

  North West Thames

  945,712

  1,184,031

  1,166,829

  North East Thames

  1,178,457

  1,475,428

  1,453,992

  South East Thames

  1,039,270

  1,301,166

  1,282,262

  South West Thames

  829,204

  1,038,163

  1,023,080

  Wessex

  671,018

  840,115

  827,909

  Oxford

  537,279

  672,673

  662,900

  South Western

  788,652

  987,392

  973,047

  West Midlands

  1,266,424

  1,585,563

  1,562,527

  Mersey

  647,160

  810,244

  798,472

  North Western

  1,104,796

  1,383,205

  1,363,108

  SHAs

  234,692

  293,834

  289,565

  Total

  12,555,045

  15,718,916

  15,490,540

  1989–90

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input Volume Terms

  Real Terms

  Northern

  862,403

  1,008,149

  998,344

  Yorkshire

  971,646

  1,135,854

  1,124,807

  Trent

  1,211,905

  1,416,717

  1,402,938

  East Anglian

  528,194

  617,459

  611,453

  North West Thames

  1,024,712

  1,197,888

  1,186,237

  North East Thames

  1,276,820

  1,492,603

  1,478,085

  South East Thames

  1,115,590

  1,304,125

  1,291,440

  South West Thames

  903,224

  1,055,869

  1,045,599

  Wessex

  724,776

  847,263

  839,022

  Oxford

  587,380

  686,647

  679,969

  South Western

  852,097

  996,101

  986,413

  West Midlands

  1,381,172

  1,614,590

  1,598,886

  Mersey

  699,483

  817,696

  809,743

  North Western

  1,174,578

  1,373,082

  1,359,727

  SHAs

  259,397

  303,235

  300,286

  Total

  13,573,377

  15,867,278

  15,712,948

  650

  1990–91

  £000

  Regions

  Cash

  Input volume terms

  Northern

  931,401

  1,014,296

  996,599

  Yorkshire

  1,057,999

  1,152,161

  1,132,059

  Trent

  1,303,099

  1,419,075

  1,394,316

  East Anglian

  580,241

  631,882

  620,858

  North West Thames

  1,102,738

  1,200,882

  1,179,930

  North East Thames

  1,373,232

  1,495,450

  1,469,358

  South East Thames

  1,216,480

  1,324,747

  1,301,634

  South West Thames

  960,135

  1,045,587

  1,027,344

  Wessex

  796,069

  866,919

  851,794

  Oxford

  635,679

  692,254

  680,177

  South Western

  934,319

  1,017,473

  999,721

  West Midlands

  1,510,106

  1,644,505

  1,615,813

  Mersey

  753,635

  820,709

  806,389

  North Western

  1,267,169

  1,379,947

  1,355,871

  SHAs

  287,586

  313,181

  307,717

  Total

  14,709,888

  16,019,068

  15,739,580

  Source: Annual accounts of regional and district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities prior to 1982–83)

  Notes:

  1. HCHS—covers all the services managed and/or accounted for by the authorities during the relevant financial years. It includes hospital, community health, patient transport (ie ambulance), blood transfusion and other services.

  2. The figures have been expressed in input volume terms at 1991–92 prices by the use of the HCHS revenue pay and prices index—currently available to 1991–92, only—and in real terms at 1991–92 prices by the use of gross domestic product deflators. Some columns may not add up precisely because of roundings.

  3. The figures for all regions prior to 1985–86 include an element for the administrative expenses of family practitioner committees, which prior to 1 April 1985 were associated with district health authorities, and such costs were not separately identified.

  4. During the period a number of boundary changes occurred—most significantly between North East and North West Thames regions between 1981–82 and 1982–83.

  5. Capital expenditure and all expenditure incurred by special health authorities providing central services to the NHS is excluded.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.
Lord Rayleigh Lord Rayleigh Took the Oath.

Otterburn: Military Training Area
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether additional provision will have to be made in the Otterburn training area for units which will be withdrawn from Germany in 1993 and whether the environmental impact of this training will conflict with the Government's declared policy in regard to military training in national parks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is considering its training requirements at Otterburn in the light of Options for Change, but no decisions have yet been taken. However, I can assure the noble Lord that we will continue to keep the objectives of the park authorities very much in mind and will maintain close contact with them in assessing the environmental impact of any further developments that may be assessed to be needed. The Government's declared policy in respect of national parks recognises that training in them remains essential to military preparedness.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, does he not agree that notwithstanding the great needs of our national defence, our national parks are of very great importance to our nation? Does he recall that his honourable friend Mr. David Trippier in accepting that fact and in giving the Government's response to the Countryside Commission's review of national parks last January, stated:
"The Government has a commitment to a wind-down of military activity in National Parks"?
Will the training needs of heavy armour and artillery returned from Germany and stationed at Catterick not inevitably intensify and widen the use of Otterburn training area to the detriment of the quiet enjoyment and recreation of the public in the Northumberland National Park?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the declaration of commitment to the national parks made by the Ministry of Defence. I am sure the noble Lord is familiar with that document. As regards the second part of his question, it is the Government's policy to release land in national parks which becomes surplus to defence requirements. We shall give advance notice of any impending disposal of redundant land to national park authorities. Turning to the third part of his question, one of the reasons why sites devoted to the
86
defence of the state are so remarkable for the variety of their flora and fauna is that they are ideal places in many instances for conservation.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Government replied to the national park review panel, it was stated that major developments in national parks were not to be allowed unless there were special circumstances, and certainly not until after a vigorous examination had been made? With that fact in mind does not my noble friend agree that the decision should be taken by the Government as a whole and not just by the Ministry of Defence and that it should be taken after a public inquiry has been conducted so that the need and alternatives can be fully explored?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, certainly it is open to the authorities that are well established to decide whether a public inquiry is appropriate in the light of any application that may arise from a decision under the present review process. I hope that my department will do its best to play a full part in any inquiry that might ensue. I wish to emphasise that I hope we have a good relationship with the national parks and other authorities. We value that relationship and we hope to build on it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, have the local planning authorities any power in helping to arrive at a decision regarding military training and national parks?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is up to the Ministry of Defence to try to decide what its requirements are for military training. It would like very much to stick to that principle. However, if the requirements impinge on land use, clearly there are other interests involved and we must consult with them.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that if the decision is made on operational grounds, it is not strictly necessary for there to be an environmental impact assessment or a public inquiry? Will the Minister reassure the House that such an inquiry and such an impact assessment will be pursued whether or not it is strictly necessary within the letter of the law?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we expect to see an environmental impact assessment carried out in the event of the eventuality which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, anticipates. I believe I have already addressed the question of the public inquiry.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister aware that large-scale exercises along the lines of Exercise Lionheart and Exercise Crusader provide essential training and experience to officers and men of the Territorial Army? There may be problems with BAOR training areas, but can the Minister say whether exercises of this size will take place, and if so when and where?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I think the advantages to the reserve army of training overseas are widely recognised. I believe the noble Earl

87
recognises that. The ACE Rapid Reaction Corps exercise programme is in the process of being formulated, and ARRC designated units within the reserve army will exercise with their parent formations at the appropriate level.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in view of the fact that the AS90 guns which it is proposed to trundle around the Otterburn training area weigh between 45 and 50 tonnes each, can the Minister tell the House whether there are any proposals for upgrading the road structure in the Northumberland National Park and, if so, how much it will cost, and who pays?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as I have already made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, any report which I give to your Lordships' House must of necessity be an interim one because the options are still under consideration. If the option which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, anticipates being chosen—and he has the advantage of me in that respect—is chosen, there will be no increase in the military roads in terms of additional roads being built in the Otterburn training area. There would merely need to be reinforcement of existing roads.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that if a choice is to be made, those of us who live in that area would much rather see an extension of military training in Otterburn rather than in the north Pennines area which is much more important than the remote area of Otterburn from the point of view of tourism?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, whose knowledge of his native heath is well known. I should also point out to the noble Lord that if that option is chosen, we expect important economic and employment benefits to the area as a consequence.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Army has informed the Northumberland National Park Committee that it will need to expand the camp at Redesdale to take an extra 800 troops, and that a great deal more tarmac will have to be laid to provide servicing, wash-down and storage facilities for the AS90 guns? That would be a major intrusion for the residents of the park and those who visit it for pleasure. Can the Minister say whether anything as bad as that could happen?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sorry if I am beginning to sound rather like a scratched record.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for your kindness! I have to say to the noble Baroness that we are only considering options at the moment. So far as concerns the national park itself and the Otterburn training area, it is clear that there will be no addition to the roads within the park. I should also point out to the noble Baroness that, while it may be difficult for our genus to accept the fact, often the presence of fewer people helps flora and
88
fauna. That is an important balance which we have to try to maintain and on which we shall try to consult with other authorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is there not a general problem, which the noble Viscount will recognise, in relation to Ministry of Defence land and the national park concept? Ministry of Defence land is clearly reserved for training, in the proper way; but when Ministry of Defence land is within a national park, a conflict arises. It is perfectly possible that the noble Viscount might say that we should bomb the Brecon Beacons and shell Snowdonia where Ministry of Defence lands are within a national park. Can we not have a clear statement of government policy, following Mr. Trippier's words which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, quoted, on what the Ministry of Defence considers should be the proper use of its land within national parks?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, no more than 3 per cent. of all national park land is used at any time by the Ministry of Defence. We have good relationships and agreements with national park authorities. We try to keep those agreements in good repair, not only with the authorities but also with the local people who live in the area and the visitors to the area. We make considerable efforts to ensure that in all areas Ministry of Defence land is closed to the public only when it is necessary to do so and is open when it is safe. In relation to the rest of the noble Lord's question, I refer him to the second part of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

Trade Marks Law: EC Directive
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to bring forward legislation to implement the proposals in the 1990 White Paper on the Reform of Trade Marks Law and to comply with the EC Trade Marks Directive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, we have prepared a comprehensive Bill which fully implements all the proposals in the White Paper and enables the United Kingdom to comply with the EC directive. We shall bring this forward as soon as parliamentary time is available.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that it will be disappointing to some people not to have a firm date for the proposed legislation given that a large number of people, firms and organisations participated in the consultation process following publication of the White Paper? Is she aware that they did so in the belief that, as a result, the legislation would be widely accepted and would not require a long and controversial passage through Parliament?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to assure my noble friend that the

89
Government are aware of the value of the legislation. However, she will appreciate that parliamentary time is a matter for others more senior than I.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many other countries in the EC have implemented the directive?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, two countries have done so: France and Denmark.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I fully appreciate that others take decisions on these matters but the Answer is very disappointing precisely because there is no controversy here. The Bill would certainly pass through your Lordships' House with its usual efficiency. More to the point, industry is crying out for this important piece of its intellectual property to be regularised. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on a technical matter relating to the Community. As I understand it, we were given until last December to pass this directive into legislation. We were then allowed to wait until this December, which is now upon us. Can the Minister clarify what happens now so far as the Community is concerned? We have not done what we were obliged to do. Do matters just drift along as if the requirement did not exist? For how long can that go on?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, let me first thank the noble Lord for assuring us of the view of the whole House on this matter. I am grateful for that. The UK has a good record on timely implementation of directives and it is one that stands very well. It is hoped that the Commission would have some sympathy for the UK position, having regard to the fact that drafting has been completed and to the pressure on parliamentary time from the enormous amount of legislation that we have introduced in connection with the creation of a single market.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in case I have not understood, can the Minister clarify that answer? If the Commission does not press us on this, or presumably any other directive, does that mean it does not matter and that provided the Commission agrees that we do not have to do it, we need not do so? Is that the way the relationship with the Community works?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord knows well that that is not the way matters work. As I said to my noble friend, we are well aware of the importance of this matter. We have to implement directives and as soon as parliamentary time is available we do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether this directive takes into account the registration of service marks, a matter which was initiated some time ago by your Lordships' House?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I must confess that I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that I should prefer not to see
90
any EC directives brought to Parliament at all. However, I must query her excuse that we are short of time. As I understand the present position, there is all the time in the world. This House has so little to do that it does not return from the Recess until seven days after the House of Commons. Under those circumstances, how can she say that there is no parliamentary time for this particular measure?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that there are two Houses to Parliament.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recognise that the Department of Trade and Industry has issued a series of White Papers on a number of subjects. Will she confirm that in 1989 the department issued a White Paper on restrictive trade practices, which was widely welcomed? Does the 1990 White Paper on the reform of trade marks now under discussion take precedence over the desirable legislation in the 1989 White Paper?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as I said, the preference or non-preference for parliamentary time is not a matter for me.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, can my noble friend kindly confirm that this proposed legislation is not just about implementation of the European Community directive? Does she agree that it is also about incorporating important provisions of the Madrid Protocol and generally updating the very out-of-date trade mark law in this country? That will be extremely helpful to the whole of industry and perhaps particularly to her special interest of small businesses.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. That is why we have listened to industry and not taken the route of secondary legislation on this matter.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is there any reason why this legislation should not start here in your Lordships' House if there is pressure on time in another place?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, again I have to tell the noble Baroness that that is not a matter for me.

Macedonia: Recognition Prospects
2.55 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What encouragement, through the European Community or otherwise, is being offered for the determination of a name acceptable to the Greek Government for the state sometimes designated Skopje-Macedonia (the former Yugoslav province of Macedonia) with a view to its recognition as an independent nation by the European Community.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in view of our presidency of the EC, the personal representative of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has

91
regularly visited Athens and Skopje in his mission to establish how the republic might be recognised in conformity with the terms of the Lisbon Declaration of 27th June. He has submitted his report to the Foreign Secretary.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware of the deep concern, which I am sure is felt throughout the House, that the conflagration in the former Yugoslavia should not spread to the Republic of Skopje, once known as Macedonia? Does she agree that the recognition of that republic is crucial to the aid and support that we might hope to offer? Does she further agree that the problem of a name has so far been an obstacle? What incentives have been offered to the leaders of the Republic of Skopje to accept a name which is acceptable to the Greek Government so that United Nations observers can be sent there and appropriate support given to the Republic of Skopje to enable it to be defended against potential Serbian aggression?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Prime Minister met the Greek Prime Minister Mr. Misotakis on 27th November. I understand that the talks were very helpful. He also held talks on 3rd December in London with President Gligorov. We have been trying to secure early restoration of trade between Macedonia and Greece. We shall continue to act as honest broker in order to obtain recognition of that state under any name except Macedonia.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her reply concedes what the Question implies; namely, that there is such an entity as the European Community? In fact at this time there is only the European Economic Community. In pursuit of the general thrust of the Question and sympathising with its objects, may I ask for an assurance that it might be advisable, before facilitating the addition of another independent nation to the European Economic Community, to secure the independence of our own nation within the European Economic Community by rejecting the Maastricht Treaty?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, that is a funny old question.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what would happen if, for example, the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and Switzerland were all to recognise the new state of Macedonia under the name of Macedonia? Would Her Majesty's Government follow suit or would they continue to defer to the Greeks?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, the Philippines, Russia and Turkey have already recognised the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. Until the name is settled, our policy remains as I stated earlier.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the best way to stop the
92
conflagration spreading is to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia, which the Serbs are totally ignoring at the present time? Does she agree that that would send a signal that the European Community and the United Nations meant business?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me almost more than I can bear. The point of the Question concerns a name acceptable to the Greek Government. Sadly, I shall have to resist his blandishments.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, will the Minister say what the Government are doing to support the Macedonian Government's economic reform programme and what humanitarian assistance, if any, they are giving to the 70,000 Bosnian refugees who have flocked into Macedonia, a country with a population of barely more than 2 million people?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, strictly speaking, I feel that the matter of refugees is a Question for another day. Under the auspices of the international conference, mediation on minorities continues. The latest rounds of talks held on 24th November drew support from all parties for a new census in which the Albanians will participate.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House what proposals the Government intend taking to the Edinburgh conference with respect to the timetable and the preconditions for the recognition of this republic as an independent nation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Macedonia was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on 7th December. We expect further discussions at the Edinburgh summit but I am afraid that I cannot give details.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that Macedonia is Greek, and is in Greece, and that any place called Skopje is certainly not Macedonia?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no doubt about the place of ancient Macedonia in Greek history. What is at issue is the name of the modern-day state and its people.

Disability Living Allowance
3.1 p.m.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to improve the processing of claims for disability living allowance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, action by the Benefits Agency of the Department of Social Security has already significantly reduced the amount of work outstanding on disability living allowance. Steady progress towards achievement of national clearance times is being maintained.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he confirm that the Benefits Agency still intends to clear all outstanding cases under the disability living allowance adjudication procedures by the end of this month? Will he further undertake that thereafter sufficient staff will continue to be available to meet the Secretary of State's target to clear at least two out of every three cases within 30 days?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Benefits Agency is confident of meeting its targets which, to give them precisely, are 60 per cent. within 30 days and 95 per cent. within 55 days. Certainly it has deployed a considerable number of extra staff, some 800 extra staff, to deal with this particular problem and has increased the amount of overtime being worked which, added to those 800 extra, allows for some 1,000 extra full-time staff equivalents being worked. But we will continue to keep matters under review and will continue to press that the right standards, the appropriate standards, are being met, so that disabled people receive the standard of service to which they are entitled.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the noble Lord comment on reports that the extra staff to whom he refers have been drawn from other offices which deal with the problems of other disabled people, and as a result we are simply transferring the backlog and adversely affecting the services of other disabled people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I start by repeating the apologies made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place and on various other occasions, expressing his regret for the unacceptable delays that have resulted in processing claims for disability living allowances. As I said, we have transferred quite large numbers of staff from other parts of the Benefits Agency to deal with the problem. But I have to say that in virtually all other areas our targets are being met and we are not in fact transferring one problem from one area to another.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we accept that the Benefits Agency has been overwhelmed, but am I not right in thinking that at the end of November more than half of all applicants were still waiting more than three months to be assessed; that when they were assessed, 77 per cent. of the agencies found a substantial number of clients were wrongly refused benefit; and that in 81 per cent. of the agencies the benefit awarded was too low? Is it not the case that, when the Benefits Agency has overcome the backlog of claims, it will face a huge backlog of appeals?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, we hope in time to deal with the backlog of claims. Obviously, the backlog of appeals may take a little longer. But the important thing is to say that we believe that the Benefits Agency is on top of the problem and I should like to reiterate the apology made by my right honourable friend, both in another place and more recently in letters to Members of another place.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill may be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour. In that event, the Child Support Fees Regulations 1992, the Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 1992 and the Third Reading of the Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill will be taken during the break.

Charities Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Charitable Trustees Incorporation Act 1872 and, except for certain spent or transitional provisions, the Charities Act 1960 and Part I of the Charities Act 1992. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Agriculture Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): 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.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Applications for approval]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 25, after ("trading") insert ("including the arrangements for pricing, continuity, delivery and means of settling disputes").
The noble Lord said: When moving Amendment No. 1, I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 15. Amendment No. 1 was suggested to me by the Food and Drink Federation, the other three by the Dairy Trade Federation. All these amendments seek to make Clauses 2 and 3 give more details.
With regard to the first amendment, I am worried that Clause 2 fails to require adequate details of the reorganisation scheme, particularly for selling milk. In Clause 2(1) (c), the general term "practices" should specify the arrangement for pricing, continuity, delivery and means of settling disputes; hence the need for the text of Amendment No. 1.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 15, Clause 3(4) (a) should be extended because while processors of milk clearly have a vital interest in the trading

95
practices to be adopted by any successor body to the board, there will be other matters in relation to the scheme of reorganisation which will be of concern and directly affect all purchasers of milk.
For example, the proposed distribution of any assets of the milk marketing board or its subsidiary have implications for competition in the dairy sector. A new subsection (4) (b) should be added to Clause 3 to ensure that an appropriate means of dispute resolution is catered for so that any difficulties arising between a successor body and its customers can be speedily dealt with.
This provision would be of particular importance if a single dominant co-operative were to emerge as successor to the Milk Marketing Board since in those circumstances there would be few, if any, alternative sources of supply for dairy companies which found themselves in dispute with the new body. Any long-standing disputes could affect the dairy sector's viability.
The Minister stated that processors' interests will not be overlooked. We need a great deal more than that. These amendments serve to recognise the extent of those interests. Perhaps I should add that I find it quite extraordinary that Clause 2 makes provision only for a milk marketing board to prepare a scheme. It is quite extraordinary that a body which is about to be executed is invited to prepare its own rules for execution. It seems to me that other interests should be involved in preparing a scheme; for example, food processors and consumers. I hope that my noble friend will comment on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Gallacher: I took note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, mentioned that the Food and Drink Federation had invited him to table Amendment No. 1 and that Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 15 were suggested by the Dairy Trade Federation. I mention that at the outset because during the passage of the Bill, where there is an obvious conflict of interests if not a suspicion of parties, it is important that we should know at various stages not merely what we are discussing but on whose behalf we are discussing it.
Lord Mottistone: I went to some trouble to explain that before moving the amendments. I always say who advises me and I do not believe that the noble Lord needs to make that point yet again.
Lord Gallacher: I was acknowledging the advice in general and setting out a course of action which may be helpful to the Committee as we proceed through this complicated Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will accept that that is a genuine attempt to facilitate consideration of the Bill in Committee. On this side of the Committee we are not acting on behalf of any particular interests. We are trying to steer a course of informed neutrality throughout our discussions on the Bill.
We have no objection to the extension of the phraseology which Amendment No. 1 contains, although we shall be interested to hear from the Minister whether or not the details of that amendment
96
are covered by the normal terms of commerce as between buyer and seller. However, we shall not object if it is felt that the Bill would be strengthened by the inclusion of those additional specifications.
As regards Amendment No. 6, we should be quite happy to see processors of milk included in the Bill to give added emphasis to their importance, which we acknowledge. Again, if the Minister is disposed to accept the amendment we should be in sympathy with it.
On Amendment No. 8, we believe that it is normal in provisions of the law of contract, which I can dimly remember from days gone by, for provision to be made for the settlement of disputes between a successor body and its customers. Indeed, the new body could choose to register in England and Wales under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 where, as I recall it, there is specific provision for an arbitration system which is designed to resolve disputes without the fuss and expense of litigation. Again, I do not believe the Bill would be harmed in any way by the inclusion of the words suggested by the noble Lord. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response on that.
Amendment No. 15 is an attempt to spell out in some detail what a successor body is. We have no objection to that either, again subject to the views expressed by the Minister. In looking at the placing of the amendment, on page 3 at line 41, our only thought is that there may be a better case for such detailed specification under Clause 21. However, subject to that thought, we are not dissatisfied with the amendment for the reasons that I have given.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that it is strange that in their attempts to meet the desires and habits of dairy farmers the Government have produced a Bill which gives the dairy trade and the consumers no direct involvement in agreeing to arrangements which will affect them greatly. Some of the possible traps into which the Bill may fall in not achieving that agreement are indicated by my noble friend's amendments.
Under the Bill Ministers will have to take the interests of the trade and consumers into account in agreeing a future scheme, but their direct involvement in that which is finally decided is nowhere to be found in the Bill. Therefore, I have a great deal of sympathy with these amendments.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I looked at the amendments and noted the mover of them. The noble Lord is quite right in that people know that he represents the interests of the processors and does it to the best of his ability. I have more sympathy, because of my background—and I declare it—with farmers and dairy farmers. I am old enough to remember the good that milk marketing boards did when they came into being in 1933. They were introduced by the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot. Considerable harm was done by the techniques of the

97
processors before that period, when they smashed the small farmer into the ground and progressively lowered the price of milk. Therefore, in general I am suspicious of the amendments because of their source. However, I am glad that they were analysed by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, and I too shall wait to hear what the Minister says.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I find these amendments confusing. I presume that my noble friend is in favour of free bargaining between parties. I have often heard him speak of the market place. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend will explain why he believes that it is necessary, particularly in Amendment No. 1, to tie down various parties. I find that totally out of character on the part of my noble friend.
Baroness O'Cathain: I have a certain sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. If the purpose of the Bill is to try to reduce the managed market and make it much more of a free market, I wonder why we need to go back into the same old mode that we have had which has bedevilled relationships among various parts of the dairy trade for the past few years. I do not believe that it is useful to see in this Bill an amendment which talks about arrangements for pricing, continuity, delivery and means of settling disputes.
I should declare an interest. It relates to my background. I was employed by the Milk Marketing Board where probably 50 per cent. of my time was taken up with those nitty-gritty matters when I should have been encouraged to think about the consumer, developing new products and providing milk to the consumer in the most cost-effective way. I believe that we shall be hamstrung if we include all those caveats into the Bill.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: Perhaps I may first refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I have been involved in the industry. It is inevitable that one asks questions and discusses the issues with everyone: milk producers, buyers, manufacturers and consumers. Therefore in declaring my interest I confirm that I am involved in all sectors. What I want from the Bill is something that is right for the industry as a whole. That is how I see the matter and the issues we shall be discussing today.
There are two or three points I should like to refer to in regard to the amendment of my noble friend. First, he refers to the need for wider consultation with the milk industry and milk producers. As a milk producer and one who is close to milk producers I am aware that there has been discussion of the issue for a long time. Since 1932 there has been a controlled marketing of milk from the point of view of producers. We are now asking them to move suddenly from a system where they had complete security—no involvement in a market place—to being much closer to their buyers and more involved in the consumers' need for various milk products.
That will not be easy for many milk producers. To make the new proposals work—of which I am in favour—it is right and proper that we should introduce a scheme which retains the confidence of the
98
vast majority of milk producers. In that regard I feel that enough discussion has taken place. It is right and proper that a new board should be formed, perhaps a sole board but not one with monopoly powers because under the Bill there will be opportunities for many other people to buy milk.
On the importance of the purchaser, I have sympathy with the comments made. It is one industry and milk producers cannot operate unless they have full confidence in the market place. I understand entirely the point that is being made. At the same time I feel that what is in the Bill creates the right balance. However, I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I should like him to be clearer as to how he sees the importance of the purchasing side of the industry.
As milk producers, we cannot effectively maximise the price we need unless we understand that the successor body will have the authority, the power and the opportunity to obtain the best possible price that the consumer will pay. I say that in the knowledge that over recent years the producer has not received the price to which he was entitled in the market available. There has not been the opportunity to maximise the milk price. In that sense I have sympathy with the comments of my noble friend. But the demands of the purchaser which would maximise that opportunity must be there. It is something that we need the Minister to understand when he responds to the proposals. I should like him be a little firmer on that point.
Earl Howe: I do not wish to delay the Committee nor, I hasten to add, to cause any embarrassment to my noble friend. However, it may be helpful to remind the Committee at this stage of the provision in the Companion to the Standing Orders covering the matter of speaking on behalf of outside interests. It says that when speaking in the House noble Lords may indicate that an outside body agrees with the substance of the views that they express but that they speak for themselves and not on behalf of outside interests. I know that my noble friend bears that in mind, but it is as well to remind ourselves of it.
The intention of the Government is to open up the dairy market to the normal commercial freedoms and constraints which apply in other sectors. Once the milk marketing schemes are ended we do not propose to take new regulatory powers to control the marketing of milk, thereby establishing a sort of milk marketing scheme Mark II. However, we intend to rely on the existing powers of the courts on the one hand and the competition authorities on the other to ensure fair trading and fair competition.
It is right and proper for the Government to ask a milk marketing board which is proposing to establish a successor trading body to demonstrate that it has considered in some depth how that body can trade fairly with its customers in a manner which does not constitute abuse of a dominant market position if it has one. That is what the requirement in Clause 2(2) (d) of the Bill, taken with Clause 3(2) (c), is intended to achieve. It must produce a statement of trading practices which takes account of the interests of

99
purchasers of milk. The statement would have to cover the arrangements for the pricing and delivery of milk.
I do not believe that anything separates my noble friend and I on this part of the argument. However, Amendment No. 1 would go further. If I understand its purpose correctly, the amendment implies that there may be a special duty on the part of a successor body to ensure some kind of continuity with the previous supply patterns of its milk marketing board predecessor. If my noble friend reflects on that, he will realise that that will not do. The point of freeing up the market is to enable market forces to work and new patterns of milk trading to emerge. It is not to require a successor body to take over where a milk marketing board left off. In any case, a successor body may control a much smaller proportion of the milk supply than its predecessor. That is something we simply do not know at the moment. On the other hand, there is an obvious and inbuilt safeguard for the domestic consumer and the processor alike against any interruption of overall supply. That lies in the simple fact that milk is a perishable commodity which is not easily stored. Cows will not cease to lactate on vesting day; milk will continue to flow to the dairies and the consumers.
As to my noble friend's other suggestion that the statement of trading practices should contain provision for settlement of disputes I hope that he will realise that that also is unacceptable if it implies—as I believe it does—that there should be provision for some procedure not normally available to commercially trading bodies. The normal means of settlement are through the courts or by arbitration. It is difficult to see what purpose would be served by a unilateral statement by a successor body that it intended to resolve disputes in some other manner since, in such matters, it takes two to tango—to coin a phrase.
The same objections apply to Amendment No. 8, also tabled by my noble friend, which would have a similar effect. A successor body should operate within the normal framework of law governing relations between trading partners. I am therefore asking the Committee to reject both Amendments Nos. 1 and 8 on two grounds: first, that they are unnecessary in that they refer to pricing and delivery arrangements, which would necessarily have to form part of a statement of the kind required; and secondly, that they are ill-advised in their reference to continuity and dispute settlement, for the reasons I gave. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will not wish to pursue the amendments further.
I turn briefly to Amendment No. 6. The Government consider as a matter of principle that it is in the best interests of consumers, and indeed all sectors of the dairy industry, including processors, to move away from our present system of statutory marketing arrangements. I outlined the reasons for that view on an earlier occasion and will not repeat them today. I do not believe that there is any real disagreement in the industry on that basic point. A move to more open and competitive marketing arrangements was welcomed in principle by virtually
100
every organisation or company which commented on the board's proposals for change in the consultation exercise carried out by government in August and September.
As I said, the Government regard the ending of the schemes as being in the interests of purchasers as well as consumers and producers. But it is at least arguable that the implementation of any reorganisation scheme of a board, which established a successor body selling milk on behalf of producers, would be less in the interests of processors than a simple winding up of the board without a successor.
To put it at its bluntest, the processors' interests might be best served by putting milk producers in a weak position in the market. After all, did not the England and Wales Dairy Trade Federation propose, in its response to the Milk Marketing Board's "new world" proposals, that the board's assets would simply be sold off and producers left to their own devices. I do not believe that that is a point which my noble friend can dismiss lightly in the context of Amendment No. 6.
For their part, the Government do not wish to ignore the legitimate wish of many producers for some form of collective marketing body. At the same time, they do not wish either to ignore the legitimate interests of purchasers. It would be quite wrong to do so. It is for that reason that the Bill makes specific provision for a board to demonstrate the intention and capacity of a proposed successor body to trade fairly, taking account of the interests of the purchasers of milk. That requirement, which is contained in Clause 3(2) (c), is a point on which Ministers must be satisfied. That is a powerful safeguard for purchasers and one which I believe they should accept as satisfactory. I very much hope that my noble friend will withdraw that amendment as well in the light of that explanation and because of the difficulties to which I have drawn attention.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: These are very important points. Does my noble friend agree that, if the Milk Marketing Board had never existed, it is improbable that the kind of successor body which is likely to emerge following the end of the Milk Marketing Board would ever be able to set itself up? Therefore, is it not reasonable that the rest of the trade, apart from the producers, is somewhat anxious about the relationship it will have and the trading conditions which will arise with the body, about whose characteristics we are not sure? However, it will be something of a one-off situation.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Earl replies, there is a recent example of the Hop Marketing Board which turned itself into a voluntary co-operative with the support of all hop producers.
Earl Howe: I know that there is anxiety in the processing industry about the extent to which its interests will be protected under the Bill. However, I believe that that anxiety is unnecessary. Clause 3(2) (c) already makes specific provision for a board to demonstrate its capacity to trade fairly and for the

101
interests of milk purchasers to be taken account of. I think that both my noble friends would do well to reflect on that. It is a very real protection for purchasers of all kinds.
Baroness O'Cathain: Would it not also be a good idea to include retailers in the scheme? They are forced to buy milk from the processors. They account for about 20 per cent. of the liquid milk market. They have valid interests which should also be considered. This is a matter which bothered me as regards the original Bill. Now that the measure has been extended to include the processors I feel that there is a gap in that retailers are not deemed to be important in the chain.
Earl Howe: I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that the retailers are not important. My point is that processors should not be included on the face of the Bill for the reasons which I have stated. If the noble Baroness feels that this is a point which should be aired at greater length, I shall be glad to consider it and respond perhaps at Report stage.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is it not a fact that without milk marketing and other boards in Denmark, the producers have formed themselves into very strong co-ops which not only market the products, both pigs and milk, but also deal with manufacture, export and promotion in other countries without regard to the independent processors?
Earl Howe: That is a very interesting point but I do not believe that it cuts across the thrust of what I was trying to say as regards this particular amendment. I shall reflect on what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Mottistone: I thank all noble Lords for having involved themselves so strongly in this matter. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has just said, that is a very strong argument but it does not relate to any of my amendments which we have under discussion at the moment. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his full reply. I am not altogether happy with parts of it. I shall take great care to read what he has said. I shall almost certainly want to come back at Report stage with something which takes advantage of what he has communicated to us. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) Applications for independent ownership of central industry assets may be made by any party other than a milk marketing board.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 24. As regards Amendments Nos. 2 and 20 I have been advised by the Food and Drink Federation. When I say "advised" I mean just that. I have been in this House for 25 years and I have received advice from people of all shapes and sizes. But anything that I say to the Committee is very firmly my own view. Some of the things that I have to say are not said on the advice
102
of these people. However, as regards Amendments Nos. 18 and 24 I have been advised by the Dairy Trade Federation.
Both sets of amendments relate to the transfer of Milk Marketing Board assets. As regards Amendments Nos. 2 and 20—the latter being consequential—I would welcome Ministerial assurances that the terms and conditions of the transfer of Milk Marketing Board assets will not be such that producers will be unduly pressured or else will jeopardise financial interests to join the successor body. There is a strong case for central industry assets, particularly the central testing laboratories, to be set up on an independent basis so that they continue to be a resource available to everyone on nondiscriminatory terms.
My noble friend should also consider the merits of opening up access to the Milk Marketing Board's haulage fleet, farm service business and real property. In that respect there is an argument for the assets to which I have referred to be somehow hived-off in another way rather than automatically going to the successor body whatever that might be.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 18 and 24, the latter amendment being consequential. In a move towards a freer market it is essential that producers be permitted full participation in determining their future. If producer groups are not given the right by statute to propose the successor bodies to which assets could be transferred, there can be no guarantee that their interests will be adequately represented by the Milk Marketing Board in preparing a scheme of reorganisation, or by the Minister when he considers the Milk Marketing Board's proposals under Clause 3(4) (b).
In introducing the Bill my noble friend the Minister recognised that producers would wish to sell direct and form local groups. They should be accorded an equal right to suggest recipients of board assets to enable them to set up and market effectively from the first day of "new world" rather than to be forced to rely on private finance or grants. In a letter from MAFF dated 11th November 1992 to the president of the Dairy Trade Federation, in the course of refuting a proposal for wider distribution of Milk Marketing Board assets, it is suggested,
"such a step would leave the successor co-operative without the resources to sustain the business".
That seems to indicate that the Government recognise that a share of the assets is crucial for any successor body. That must apply equally to any producer grouping. The request that producers other than the Milk Marketing Board should be allowed to suggest suitable transfers is a natural embodiment of my noble friend's assurance that the purpose of the Bill is to allow freedom to producers to give effect to their commercial judgment.
This is a complicated matter, but I believe that there is room for amendments on the lines that I have suggested in order to free the situation in a way that currently the Bill does not do. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: The Committee is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for giving us an early opportunity to debate this central area of the proposals in the Bill regarding the future of the milk marketing boards. I must admit that when I first read the amendment I wondered what the noble Lord meant by "central industry assets". It was helpful that he defined them and seemed to include in them all those activities of the marketing boards which are not involved directly in the sale and purchase of milk. As I understand it, that means all the cattle breeding, the farmer services, the central testing, and all the rest.
As the noble Lord suggested, Amendments Nos. 2 and 18 march together, but when considering them together one cannot help wondering, without being in the least unkind, whether they were intended to ensure that a number of successor bodies would emerge which would be much weaker than the new co-operatives proposed by the marketing boards as their likely successors. As the noble Lord knows, in a later amendment I ask the Government to consider the definition of those services which should come under a milk development council, as set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, and those services which should remain either as stand-alone commercial services or as part of the successor bodies. That is an important point to which I am sure we shall return when we reach that later amendment,
If Amendments Nos. 2 and 18 were to be accepted by the Government they would effectively take the heart out of the Bill. It is an enabling Bill which states clearly that only the marketing boards can bring forward proposals for their successor bodies. I should like to take this opportunity early in the debate to make clear the view of these Benches that, as I said on Second Reading, if we had formed the Government we would not have sought to wind up the marketing boards. We would have tried to amend them in the light of the European situation to ensure that the way in which they traded—the sale of milk, and the rest of it—was transparent, but we would have tried to keep them. However, that is not to be. We now have this Bill and I should make it clear early on that we want strong successor bodies to the marketing boards. Milk producers face some powerful forces on the other side of the farm gate and as long as the successor bodies meet the criteria which are set out in the Bill—we shall be seeking in later amendments to extend and improve those criteria—and their activities are properly controlled under normal competition law, we want them to succeed.
Amendment No. 2 states:
"Applications for independent ownership … may be made by any party other than a milk marketing board".
Presumably, that excludes the milk marketing boards from any attempt to bid for the assets or from any attempt to keep them. The amendment is entirely clear. It refers to
"any party other than a milk marketing board".
When the noble Lord replies and decides what to do with his amendment, will he consider whether the assets might be of any interest to the major buyers of
104
milk? Some of the big dairy companies might be interested in purchasing some of the assets. If that was the case, would that affect his view? Would he be concerned about the increased concentration that would result if bodies which are powerful in the market also controlled a number of those important services?
Amendment No. 18 seems to conflict with Amendment No. 2. It suggests that producer groups shall have an opportunity to bid for the assets, referring to,
"other than to a successor body to the board".
Obviously, Amendment No. 18 implies that there will be successor bodies to the board although under Amendment No. 2 all the assets other than the trading of milk will have been removed from them. It would be unusual for the Opposition to describe an amendment as a "wrecking amendment", but it seems to me that if Amendment No. 18 were to be accepted it would be remarkably unhelpful from the Government's point of view.
When he moved his first amendment the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that the position of the marketing boards is like that of the man who is facing execution and is asked to decide on the way in which the execution is to be conducted. I think that the noble Lord had the wrong analogy. The marketing boards are to be reborn and are being asked to define their future role as midwives. I think that that is the better analogy. Amendment No. 18 states that successor bodies shall exist alongside the producer groups, but Amendment No. 2 states that successor bodies shall not be allowed to own the central industry assets, however defined.
Turning to the invitation in Amendment No. 18 which states,
"shall have invited proposals from all registered producers",
perhaps the noble Lord will tell the Committee how long the invitation period will last. Obviously, this will be required in the planning procedure if we are to plan the successor bodies properly. I assume that he means that no single producer group can submit an offer for all the property and rights of the boards because, if one did, that would be the same as the position for the new co-operative. Therefore, the noble Lord must mean that a number of producer groups would have to be involved.
It would also be helpful if the noble Lord could define what he means by "producer groups". Are they to be co-operatives or private companies? I seem to be making the Minister's arguments for him, but may I also ask the noble Lord how the Government are to decide on the appropriate allocation of the property and rights of the boards when they have to make the decision about the producer groups? There could be a long delay and increased uncertainty.
As I said, I have tried to be fair to the Committee and to make our position clear at the outset. We wanted to keep the marketing boards, but that is not to be. We shall support the Government in ensuring that a strong producers' organisation succeeds the boards provided there is transparency in its trading practices and that it is subject to normal competition law.

105
I find it hard to see what the amendment is intended to achieve except, perhaps, confusion. We know that, under the new proposals, when the milk marketing schemes are revoked there will be nothing to stop groups of registered producers from selling their milk to whomsoever they like. That is clear and I do not think that anybody argues about that now. The anxiety is about the assets of the marketing boards, with the exception of Dairy Crest. I am told that the balance of assets is about 20 per cent. of the total. It is proposed that that would pass only to the new co-operative—to the successor body.
The anxiety about that is based on a failure to understand the principles of co-operation. If the new body is set up as a co-operative under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act—I am speaking particularly of the marketing board in England and Wales —the members cannot by law make entrepreneurial profits on capital as a result of ownership. In other words, the assets belong to the body of producers. The technical term is "mutual trade". Therefore, the idea that the producers who join at the beginning will have some extra right to the capital value of the assets is a misunderstanding. Those assets will belong in total to the body of members, but not to individual members. If they leave, there is a limitation in law on the amount of capital which they can extract. On that point perhaps I should say in passing that there is some anxiety about what would happen on the winding up or dissolution of a successor body, and I have tabled an amendment to deal with that.
The point that I have just made has also been made in a helpful letter dated 11th November from Sir Derek Andrews, the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to Mr. Smith, the President of the Dairy Trade Federation. The letter states:
"But there is also a need to take into account relevant competition considerations. One that might be relevant here is that a producer leaving a successor co-operative would not, under normal co-operative principles, expect to take a share of the body's assets with him. It is therefore open to question whether the fact that the co-operative inherited laboratories or other services of the former MMB would constitute an incentive to producers to join. If the co-operative were to undertake to make those same services available on commercial terms to all producers, as I believe is the present intention, that too could be a relevant factor".
On the point about the power of the buyers on the other side of the farm gate, to which I have already referred, I have received an extremely helpful letter and a lot of background briefing from one of the major dairy companies, one of the big buyers. The chairman's first point is:
"There is no need for milk producers to worry about being abused by the buyers of milk. Because of quotas, milk is in short supply and will continue to be so".
Three lines down he states:
"If we are faced by an unregulated monopoly controlling the supply of milk we will have no choice but to seek alternative supplies in other countries within the Community".
Quite how that marches with the first statement that there is no need for producers to worry about being abused by the buyers of milk, I do not know. It is, to say the least, a little contradictory.
I have taken some time over this group of amendments because it is central to the whole
106
argument. As I said at the beginning, the noble Lord is to be thanked for allowing us to debate this extremely important point. In our view the amendments run counter to the fundamental provisions of the Bill that only the marketing boards can bring forward proposals for their own reorganisation. For that reason, if the noble Lord decides to press them to a Division, we shall find it hard to support him.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, failed to say that these are wrecking amendments but I think that that is exactly what they are. The intention of the Bill is to help the producers to produce a scheme for marketing in lieu of the Milk Marketing Board. The Government have inserted many safeguards so that it will not be an aggressive monopoly. These amendments, particularly Amendment No. 2, are designed to wreck it.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I thank my noble friend for bringing forward these amendment because, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, they give us an opportunity to debate one or two important issues. There are a number of important factors which must be brought into play in the new revised milk industry which are not part of the Bill and, in my view, are rightly not part of the Bill. What the Bill seeks to do is to free up the market to allow the market place to decide much more the structure of the milk industry. However, some of the factors that the amendments raise need to be confronted by the industry itself. There needs to be a look at central testing. There needs to be a look at the better use perhaps of some of the assets that are now with the milk marketing board and will not go out as Dairy Crest assets. There is also a need to look at some other aspects, such as research and development, to which we shall come later in the Bill. I wish to suggest that, in putting forward their proposals for reorganisation, the existing milk marketing boards look at these issues a little more closely than possibly they have in the proposals put forward to date.
I should like to suggest to my noble friend the Minister that, in reviewing the various proposals that are put forward, the Government might look again at this aspect. We have an opportunity to bring the sectors of the industry together to achieve certain industry initiatives in a way that has not happened before because there has been a traditional division between the milk producer and the milk purchaser. A number of issues which my noble friend brings forward in the amendment need to be tackled on an industry basis. Although, for all the reasons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I would not agree to any of the amendments becoming part of the Bill, I would suggest that the milk marketing boards themselves look at some of these aspects and how they put forward their reorganisation proposals and that the Minister, when looking at them, bears these points very much in mind.
Baroness O'Cathain: I fear that Amendment No. 2 is an attempt to emasculate the successor body before ever it gets started. The particular reference to central

107
testing facilities is one which I do not think the Committee should support. The fact remains that central testing facilities are just that. They are central testing facilities. They have been built up over a number of years and have a great level of expertise. They have an unimpeachable record in terms of being totally even-handed. They have undertaken work for other sectors of the food industry and their work has been regarded as being of a very high quality and standard. I believe that this is an attempt by certain people who have vested interests in the milk industry —I am not going to name people—to undermine the successor body. If that happens the consumer will be disadvantaged. Of course the producers will be disadvantaged but the consumer will not get his or her fresh milk and once more we will be subjected to an enormous inflow of milk products from other parts of the European Community and elsewhere. I hope and pray that the amendment will be rejected.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness knows a great deal about this subject and she makes important points. I do not know how practical these amendments would be if they were incorporated into the Bill but the underlying point is very important even if it goes right to the heart of the Bill. One might call it a wrecking amendment but then this is a different kind of Bill. If it were changed in a fundamental way one could say that it would be wrecked. The question is whether the whole of this approach is right in the interests ultimately of the consumer. That is what we are asking.
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what he sees the assets to be? I know that the Milk Marketing Board has said that it would be its intention that the services which it provides at the moment should be available not only to the producers who join the co-operative but to others and that all would pay for them. That is fair enough. But what about, for example, the milk tankers which collect milk and take it from the farm to the central points? Are those part of the assets? Will those go to the successor body? Will the people who do not join not have the benefit of the value of any of these tankers? Will that be so? Can the Minister tell us what the assets are just so that we can be clear? The fairness of this to people who do not want to join the co-operative is extremely important.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may make a point about milk collection. Unless things have changed drastically in the past four years I do not think that the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales, as the milk marketing section, actually owns tankers. It becomes involved with haulage contractors from independent hauliers as there is as well a large transport contract with Dairy Crest, which will be floated off. I do not necessarily think that tankers are the issue. I am worried about central testing. How can one divide up five large laboratories in terms of blocks of assets to sell them off?
The Earl of Selborne: I should first of all declare an interest as a dairy farmer and as president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. It will not
108
surprise the Committee to hear that, like many other speakers, I find the amendments totally unacceptable. As my noble friend Lord Wade said, there is an issue as to how these assets, whatever they may be, are to continue for the benefit of producers, consumers and everyone else. The proposals in this series of amendments will not achieve that. I am quite clear that we should reject them.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for raising the subject in the first place and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie of Benshie, for what they said.
The Government's approach to the ending of the milk marketing schemes has been to encourage the boards themselves to put forward proposals for future marketing arrangements. They do so in the belief that there is a widespread desire among producers for some form of collective marketing body in the new world, if I may call it that, to afford a degree of collective security for those producers who do not wish to take full advantage of the new freedom to go it alone. The Government also believe that if soundly-based successor organisations are to be established, they should look to the boards whose members are elected by milk producers to judge what stands the best chance of success.
There are of course limits to the degree of discretion which should be allowed to the boards. That is what Clause 3 of the Bill is all about. The Government do not, however, start from the point of view that any particular treatment needs to be accorded to any particular type of assets, although it is relevant to point out that Ministers are required to judge whether a reorganisation scheme makes reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to registered producers. That is in Clause 3(4) (b). Some producers may wish to use the assets that they receive to help them finance their own marketing initiatives. They may also wish to apply for assistance under the group marketing grant, which appears in Part III of the Bill. The Government would welcome such initiatives.
The Government do not subscribe to the view that there is something special about certain types of assets which means that they, in particular, must be passed into some form of common industry ownership. The central testing laboratory is an example that has been given. It is clear that any body purchasing milk from producers needs to be able to carry out tests to determine hygienic quality, solids, fat content, and so on, as a basis for determining payments to producers. That would apply to a single successor co-operative in England and Wales, for example, if one were to be established. So it is not an unreasonable proposition, by definition, for the co-operative to take over the board's testing facilities. Here I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone. The Government would be worried if no alternative facilities were available to other potential purchasers of milk from producers; but that is not the case. The major dairy companies already have testing laboratories, as do a number of independent concerns up and down the country. Moreover, the board has said that its testing

109
facilities will continue to be available on a commercial basis to non-members of a co-operative as well as to members.
Ministers will judge the board's proposals on their merits when they receive them. Here I take full note of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wade. My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked where the other assets will go in any reorganisation scheme. We shall not know until we receive the proposals.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for intervening. I did not ask where they would go, I asked whether he would tell us what they consist of.
Earl Howe: I also heard my noble friend ask where they would go. That is a point to which we shall come shortly. I can tell her what they are in outline. There is a certain amount of real property at Thames Ditton, for example. The haulage fleet, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, pointed out, is, according to my understanding and advice, largely leased. I apologise if that is wrong. The MMB's present stance is that the successor body that it has proposed will own directly only a small part of the tanker fleet. It has yet to be decided what will happen to other peripheral activities such as GENUS, the National Milk Records and so on. Although that is not a full list of the assets in the balance sheets, they are the major ones.
What Ministers will not do is act as adjudicators in a free-for-all in which any group may put in a bid for selected slices of the assets. That would be a recipe for chaos. At best, it would mean that Ministers would have to write their own reorganisation scheme rather than exercise their function of approval or rejection. That is not the basis of the Government's policy and cuts seriously across the thrust of the Bill. I ask my noble friend to think again about the amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for his reply. I do not really need to think again. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Carter, may have said, I did not suspect that I would have an opportunity to take any of these amendments successfully through the Division Lobbies, by virtue of their nature, which has inspired a certain amount of discussion. I thank my noble friends Lord Wade and Lady Carnegy for their contributions. I have by no means finished the battle. I do not take as too much of a rejection the views of those Members of the Committee who want to retain as much of the status quo as possible, because I am sure that that is not right. I understand that that is what some people would like. I shall read with great care what has been said, not just by my noble friend the Minister but by other Members of the Committee, and will probably come back at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Determination of applications]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
110
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ("and has had regard to the results of a poll of registered producers conducted in such manner as it thinks fit for the purpose of ascertaining the level of support amongst them").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to a poll of producers. In his reply to the previous amendment, the Minister said that he thought that all producers wanted collective security. I happen to think that he is right. But how does he know? I am sure that he has not had access to all producers so as to be able to form that view.
The amendment has been worded carefully. I compare its wording to that of Clause 36 which deals with a poll in respect of the future of the Potato Marketing Board. The clause provides:
"The Board may carry out a poll of registered producers".
Subsection (2) states:
"Where the Board carries out a poll under this section, the result of the poll shall not constrain it in deciding what to do in relation to that section".
In other words, it can have a poll and ignore it. I have tried to word the amendment a little more carefully than Clause 36 is worded. I have used the words, "had regard to." It may help the Committee to know that there is a good precedent for that wording in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which states:
"In dealing with such an application the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations".
The courts have held that a duty to have regard imposes no obligation to adhere slavishly to the plan: the formula means that the authority has to consider all the material considerations, of which the plan is one. The phrase does not however allow the Secretary of State to set the plan aside altogether in favour of some other consideration. That is the reason for using the words "had regard to."
I should appreciate the Minister's guidance on the following points. Under Section 4 of the Agriculture Marketing Act 1958, am I right to think that if 200 registered producers demand a poll under that Act about the future of the milk marketing scheme, the board would have to organise one? That section of the Act is not amended until Clause 18 of this Bill, which comes into force on vesting day. So a demand for a poll by producers on the future of the marketing boards would be legal, as I understand it, until vesting day. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that point. What will be the Government's reaction to a poll of producers which shows substantial, and perhaps overwhelming, support for retaining the MMBs? If there were such a poll under the 1958 Act it would be interesting to know what the Government's response would be.
I turn now to a poll under the existing legislation. Perhaps I may quote a helpful letter sent to Mr. Packer, the then Deputy Secretary and now Permanent Secretary to the department, by Mr. McMichael-Phillips, summarising a discussion which had been held with Mr. Packer. On the issue of a poll under the 1958 Act, he said:
"You agreed with us that provisions for producer polls remained in force until the current legislation was repealed".
As I said, as I read the Bill that is not until vesting day, when the existing schemes are revoked.
I shall deal now with a poll relating to support for the new scheme, which is what the amendment is concerned with. As I said on Second Reading, producers have been led to believe that they would have the chance to express their views. I quoted on 23rd November at col. 807 from a press release from the milk marketing board of July 1990.
"The Board would only consider recommending becoming a co-operative if it received specific and satisfactory assurances. Then and only then would producers be asked to vote on it and decide."
Presumably the board has now considered it and it is in fact recommending becoming a co-operative, but I do not know how it received specific and satisfactory assurances because it will not receive those until the scheme is approved by the Minister. I am not sure how that hangs together.
I also quoted at Second Reading at col. 807 from a report in March 1991. Again the MMB at a press conference
"emphasised several times that there would be no change in the existing scheme until producers had voted favourably in a referendum and an Act of Parliament had been passed."
How do the Government square this? If the Minister remembers, his answer at Second Reading at col. 858 on 23rd November was:
"I wish to point out that the milk marketing boards have their own procedures for consulting producers and they do not wish to have a special power for a formal poll".
It is clear that the Government have accepted the view of the boards that they do not want a poll, and they are presumably ignoring the requirements of the 1958 Act. It would be helpful if we had this clear.
After Second Reading I had a most helpful letter from Sir Andrew Dare, chief executive of the MMB, in which he said—and I think this is fair—that if a poll were to be held it would
"nevertheless inevitably consume considerable time, expense and effort".
Well, that is true. That is the trouble with democracy. It involves considerable time, expense, and effort.
I know that there have been a number of meetings around the country in which the producers have hardly been consulted. It is being regarded now as a fait accompli. They have not been consulted in the full sense of the word. They are really being told that there is no alternative. Perhaps there is not, but I should like the Government to put the argument why they think the producers should not be asked for their views. If we finally accept the arguments against a poll—and of course they may be strong—it is fair to ask that the Government must ensure that they are satisfied that the producers have been properly consulted, and indeed are likely to support the proposed new schemes of the successor bodies. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not sure whether the noble Lord intends the amendment to relate to Scotland. From my reading of the amendment and the Bill I think that it does. My understanding from the Scottish National Farmers Union is that there have been extensive discussions over several years on this subject, and that a recent grass roots petition in favour of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board's plans was
112
signed by over 97 per cent. of milk producers. There seems to be no question in Scotland that milk farmers want the Bill.
Lord Carter: The noble Baroness is correct. We are in a little danger in our discussions today in concentrating entirely on the marketing board for England and Wales. I am aware of that poll which, if you like, shows that there is sufficient support. Therefore, clearly there is no need for a poll in that particular area.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: I should like to begin by declaring an interest as a producer before I speak about this amendment, and to say that I personally doubt the wisdom of holding a poll. I do not know of any strong demand from producers who produce for the England and Wales board for such a poll. I know that the board has taken extensive soundings, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government know that also.
The matter which gives me the most concern is the time delay that might be caused if such a poll were instituted. I have a suspicion that it could handicap the new co-operative in its prospects for having plenty of time to sign up producers. It might have to wait until after this poll, and there may not be much time. That degree of delay could be damaging to the future of the new co-operative. The best poll will prove to be the one that shows the degree of support that producers will finally give to the new co-operative.
Lord Geraint: I have been told many times that a week in politics is a very long time indeed, but the Milk Marketing Board has survived within the political arena for the past 60 years. Successive governments have said that the board has done an excellent job for the dairy farmers and the producers of this country. Over the past 30 or 40 years we have had a unique delivery of the pint of milk to nearly every household in this country. I support this amendment. If my memory serves me right, about 10 years ago a poll was carried out within the milk marketing board organisation itself. Nearly 95 or 96 per cent. of producers were in favour of having a ballot.
From my understanding of the brief that has been given to me by the Milk Marketing Board it was keen to have a poll now, or at the beginning of the year. Its brief says:
"So long as there was a possibility that the milk marketing scheme might be updated and retained, the milk marketing board considered that it was appropriate that there should be a poll of registered producers to ascertain their views".
But I am afraid that it is not to be.
It would be wise at this stage for the Government to tell the public, the dairy producers and the housewife, who is responsible for demolishing the Milk Marketing Board. Is it the board itself? Is it this Government? Or is it the European Community? I think that the fault is with our Government that the Milk Marketing Board is to be wound up. It does not make sense to me that the Milk Marketing Board is to

113
lose its statutory powers while other boards in this country are to retain theirs. There is bound to be a bit of misunderstanding somewhere.
Let us hope that the Government in their wisdom will accept this amendment. It is a wise move that we press this point. The majority of dairy producers would be keen to respond to the contents of the questionnaire. For 60 years they have been well served by the Milk Marketing Board. So have the consumers. If a referendum was successful 10 years ago, I believe that a referendum should be held on this occasion to ascertain that all the dairy producers are in favour of this scheme.
Will the Minister please let us know whether the responsibility lies with the European Commission? Was it not willing for the Milk Marketing Board to be retained in its present form? I am aware that it was not willing to accept an amended version of the Milk Marketing Board, but I cannot understand why it was against retaining the statutory powers within the Milk Marketing Board itself like other boards that we have in Britain. There was something wrong somewhere during the negotiations in Brussels and here.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I could not accept this amendment and I trust that my noble friend the Minister will resist it. I have not the slightest doubt that there is the feeling among all the milk producers that I meet that there is now full support for a change in the milk marketing system. I should like to draw attention to the fact that all registered producers are members of the milk marketing boards and it is the registered producers themselves who are putting forward the reorganisation proposals. There is no doubt that in all of the milk marketing boards that have put forward proposals there have been long consultations with all their milk producers. I am fully satisfied that there is great support for a change in the industry.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, that there is no one person or group of persons responsible for the marketing changes that are now taking place in the milk industry. The reason why they are essential is that the market place in which the industry operates has changed. The noble Lord referred to the fact that in the past 60 years the board had served everybody well and that it must continue to serve everybody well. The point is that in recent years it has not served everybody well. It has been against the interests of the consumer, because there has been a tremendous lack of choice of products as indicated by the fact that many products have had to be imported to satisfy consumer demand. It has certainly been against the interests of UK milk producers who receive a much lower price for their milk than comparable producers in the rest of Europe. That will continue unless there is a dramatic change in our system of marketing milk. As pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in replying or referring to a letter, milk is now in short supply; demand is greater than supply. We want to ensure that that is fully appreciated and accepted by the farming community. Milk producers welcome the Bill, and I hope that the amendment will be resisted.
Baroness O'Cathain: Like the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I am unable to support the amendment. I think that it will be yet another costly exercise. I believe it is right to draw the attention of the Chamber to the fact that in the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales there is an amazingly good system of communication. Regional committees meet frequently, and I believe that every producer is spoken to. But when it comes to elections I believe that inertia takes over. For example, in the election of board members it is not unknown for them to be returned after a poll of 37 per cent. or thereabouts. If one achieved that level of poll as a result of the amendment would everybody feel comfortable that the principles of the scheme had been agreed by the whole body of producers?
The part of the Act to which the amendment refers talks about drawing the principles of the scheme to the attention of producers. I believe that there is a case for drawing the scheme to the attention of other people as well. I return to the position of consumer bodies, retailers and processors. I have that slight worry, but certainly not about going for a poll of milk producers.
Lord Borthwick: I wish to raise a question about the Wool Board. Reference has been made to the Potato Board and the Milk Marketing Board. Apparently, they have some arrangements whereby they can do something. The Wool Board is something quite different. Many years ago I took over the Wool Board which at the time was a big mess. We could not sell our stuff and the thing was not set up properly. We then began a grading system. We graded our wool very thoroughly in this country and began to get better sales and prices went up. Things improved tremendously. Our grades were accepted by Australia and New Zealand, and the whole world; they worked on the grades that we produced in Bradford during the very early days of the Wool Board. That is all going to go by the board. I am not quite sure what the position will be. Do we now move towards the control that we had over wool throughout the world, or do we not? The position is controlled by a lot of outside people.
Lord Mottistone: Surely, we have to speak relevantly to the amendment. There is nothing in the amendment about the Wool Board. The time for the noble Lord to have talked about that might have been Second Reading, or he might care to put down an amendment to add a clause about the Wool Board so that it could be debated next time. But I think one has to be strictly relevant. If other noble Lords do not agree perhaps they will say so.
Lord Borthwick: I thank my noble friend for putting me right. I will try to put down an amendment because I think that it should be in the Bill somehow or other.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I cannot say that I see any harm in the amendment, because one thing that the board has to do is to find out what producers are going to do. Therefore, it may well be done in the form of a poll as well as anything else. They will need to ascertain the number who support it and to tell people what they are proposing. The amendment appears to

115
me to be a perfectly reasonable addition, although I must say that subsection (2) (a) also appears to cover the point. However, it may be advantageous to add the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not support the amendment. I am sorry to say that for the first time I have to disagree with my fellow countryman the noble Lord, Lord Geraint. He read the first part of a brief from the Milk Marketing Board. I must read the next paragraph which I believe that in fairness the noble Lord should have read:
"In the Spring of 1992, however, it became clear that the current milk marketing scheme could not survive intact in its present form; that the European Commission was not willing to see the scheme amended: that the UK Government was not willing to support such an effort and that legislation announced in the Queen's Speech would revoke the scheme. A referendum of milk producers then ceased to be a sensible and necessary exercise".
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was very grateful—and not at all surprised—that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the words
"and has had regard to the results of a poll".
I am very grateful for his explanation, but I still do not understand why the words are there. It seems very odd to me to invite people to have a poll and then to tell them that regard will be had to the way they have voted but that it will not be in any way decisive; otherwise, the words do not mean anything. I hope that my noble friend will on this occasion resist the amendment. Usually amendments proposed by the noble Lord are very sensible but this one appears to be the exception.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I shall certainly look for his support if I divide the Committee on a later amendment relating to the Potato Marketing Board where the Government say not only that regard should not be had to the results of a poll but that they should be completely ignored or they should not be constrained by them. That is even weaker than the words that I have used in this amendment. If when we come to that amendment I decide to divide the Committee I am sure that the noble Lord will be with me.
I use the phrase "had regard to" because it has precedents. If there were a poll the proposal would be represented to producers, and those who had to administer the scheme—because it would be com-plicated—would have to have regard to it; in other words, they could not ignore it completely, nor would they have to follow every detail of the result slavishly. It would be advising them that that was the view of producers. There are many precedents for it, and it is wording that has been carefully used. When we come to Clause 36(2) I hope that the noble Lord will be equally critical of the Government about the way in which they have worded the Bill.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I believe that the argument of precedent is one that should be used very sparingly. We have all heard it used on many occasions usually from government sources with deplorable results.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: The possibility of a formal poll of registered producers was raised in your Lordships' House during Second Reading. At that time I pointed out that the milk marketing boards were owned and controlled by their members and that they had their own procedures for consulting their members when the need arose. Furthermore, they did request that no special powers should be included in the Bill to conduct a formal poll before submitting a reorganisation scheme for approval. They did make that request. I do not want the Committee to think that the Government somehow consider it better for producers' views to be bypassed. The principle that producers should be consulted on a matter which fundamentally affects their future is not in doubt. That is why Clause 3(2) of the Bill requires Ministers to be satisfied,
"that the board has taken reasonable steps to bring the principles of the scheme to the attention of registered producers".
Any sufficiently important variation of an approved scheme would also have to be brought to their attention under Clause 5(2).
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the 1958 Act and asked whether, if producers demand a poll on the future of the scheme, the board would have to organise one. A poll on the question of whether the milk marketing scheme should be revoked may, as I understand it, be demanded in writing by any 2,000 registered producers. No further poll on the question of revocation may be taken without the consent of the board within three years of an earlier poll. The figure of 200 relates to a submission to the Minister by producers asking for an amendment of the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked why we could not have adapted the MMB in some fashion to fit the requirements of Brussels. My reply to that is that my noble friend Lord Wade has answered the noble Lord in terms I cannot better. The industry itself wants this reform for the reasons I outlined on Second Reading. It is the inflexibility and rigidities of the market above all which are not serving our milk industry well. Brussels is not the reason.
The boards are democratically elected bodies and when they speak they must be held to speak for their members. They have already each carried out a substantial consultation exercise among producers regarding their current proposals and in the light of that exercise I do not think it is sensible to force a formal poll on them, or possibly a series of polls, when they have themselves rejected the idea of a poll. I believe that the Bill contains sufficient safeguards for the interests of producers and I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press this amendment.
Lord Carter: Before we decide what to do with the amendment, I have a question for the Minister. He said the boards had not asked for the formal procedure of a poll. If they had asked for such a poll would the Government have agreed?
Earl Howe: I must give the standard answer. That is a hypothetical question.
Lord Carter: That is a fairly revealing answer. I am extremely grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this extremely useful if fairly predictable debate. I was anxious to find out whether it was the marketing boards or the Government that were making the policy. I have to say I am still a little unsure about that. There is a point that arose in the debate which, although not strictly relevant to the poll, should be dealt with. I believe we shall hear it said on a number of occasions in our discussions that, as regards the changes that are proposed, producers and consumers will both benefit. Everybody cannot win so presumably the dairy trade will lose out. I beg leave to doubt whether that will be the outcome of all the changes we are proposing.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for pointing out that a poll can be demanded by any 2,000 producers and, if they do so, one must be carried out on the future of the milk marketing schemes. However, the Minister omitted to tell me what the Government's reaction would be if there were such a poll and there was overwhelming support for the continuation of the milk marketing scheme. Perhaps he would like to pick up that point before I continue.
Earl Howe: There is no doubt that if a poll produced an overwhelming vote one way or the other Ministers would need to have good reasons for rejecting the majority view of the producers' poll, as would the board itself.
Lord Carter: I hope the Minister is clear. I was referring to a poll on the future of the marketing boards. If there were a poll under the 1958 Act and that poll showed overwhelming support for the continuation of the marketing boards, I should be interested to know what the Government's response would be.
Earl Howe: I am sorry, I misunderstood the noble Lord. The Government's policy is quite clear on this. The schemes will be ended, no matter what, by 31st December 1995 at the latest. In that context I am afraid a poll would not be a relevant exercise.
Lord Carter: That was the answer I was anxious to have on the record. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for giving it to me. I shall read Hansard with interest and I shall decide whether to return with this provision at a later stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) The authority to which the application is made shall, before granting the application, consult with those persons who, in the opinion of the authority, represent the interests of producers, purchasers and consumers of milk.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 deals with the important part of the Bill in which the authority to whom an application is made shall not grant the application unless it satisfies certain conditions specified in subsection (2) (a), (b) and (c). The purpose of the amendment is to somewhat strengthen the position as regards satisfaction and the decision to
118
disallow an application. The Minister has already referred to provisions in the Bill which he regards as being adequate safeguards. He has spelt out Clause 2(2) (c) and Clause 3(2) (c). Despite those assurances, however, we feel that it is worth finding out the view of the Committee on whether or not there is a case for a somewhat wider test. The amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter and myself provides such a test in the details of the wording which the amendment includes.
We believe that before granting an application there should he consultation by the authority with those persons who in the opinion of the authority represent the interests of producers, purchasers and consumers of milk. We think, as I said, that this provision is important to ensure the safeguards of all the interests concerned. We have already heard this afternoon sufficient evidence before the Committee on the fact that there are genuine concerns which we feel would be met in large measure if this amendment were to be made and if the Minister felt able to accept it.
We do not believe that it would unduly delay the implementation of the schemes to which the Bill is dedicated and we believe that at the end of the day the fact that such consultation had taken place would provide a valuable reassurance and, in the long term, probably enable the milk marketing co-operative to begin life in the knowledge that its fundamental constitution had been discussed with the trade and with consumers and that to that extent it was, as it were, beginning life with a clean sheet and having at least in some measure the support of all the interests in the dairy trade. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Amendment No. 5 is grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I do not have much to add to what he said. The important point is that my amendment contains the words,
"having consulted all interested parties"
without specifying which parties are concerned. It is important that this little part of the Bill should be widened to make quite certain that people who will be affected by these outcomes are all consulted at the appropriate stage. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least agree to that in principle. Whether he prefers the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, or mine is not important provided something appears in the Bill on this general theme.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I, too, wish to support this amendment particularly because of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, who said that the new bodies to emerge from this process will start on a far stronger base if they know that everybody is satisfied by the schemes.
Baroness O'Cathain: I, too, wish to support this amendment because I believe the amount of consultation that is suggested in the Bill is too narrow. Once more I am going to bring in producers, processors, consumers and retailers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I may be anticipating the Minister's reply, but I do not see the need for this amendment. It states quite simply that the authority shall not grant an application unless it is satisfied that

119
the practices contained in it take account of the interests of purchasers of milk, and that must include the consumers.
Earl Howe: I made clear at Second Reading that the Government intend to consult on appropriate elements in a board's proposed scheme of reorganisation. It is right and proper that the principles of a scheme, its main elements, should be in the public domain so that interested parties may make representations.
The precise form which that consultation should take will depend on a number of factors, including the extent to which a board's proposals differ from those on which formal consultation has already been undertaken. Moreover, I do not believe that it is either right or necessary that every last detail of a reorganisation scheme should be made public. Such a scheme will consist largely of schedules of property and other assets of a board. Many of the details will be commercially sensitive from the point of view of a successor body and it would not be right for them to be forcibly disclosed to competitors.
It would also be highly undesirable for a consultation procedure to be introduced which was unreasonably onerous and slowed down the already complex procedure for reaching a decision on a reorganisation scheme to the extent that it became impossible to adhere to the timetable laid down in the Bill.
Having said that, I concede that the terms of the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, are reasonable and I can accept that amendment in principle. If they will agree not to press the matter today I shall undertake to bring forward an appropriate amendment on behalf of the Government at Report stage to meet the point that I take to be central to the concern.
I turn now to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, which has a similar purpose. Although the requirement to consult all interested parties might be held to refer to consumers or producers individually, he will agree that that would pose a formidable task. I trust that my noble friend will be content with the assurance I gave in relation to Amendment No. 4 and will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. In the light of what he said, and in anticipation of a government amendment being tabled at the next stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert ("and especially small producers of milk").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with a matter which we touched on at Second Reading and which has caused some anxiety within the industry. I believe that that is a concern which is shared by all parties who are interested in the viability of our rural areas.
We know that all five marketing boards have performed an enormously valuable function in their lifetime in what might be described as rural social policy. The promise of the monthly milk cheque from a buyer who would always pay up, and in particular the pooling of both price and haulage costs, has been extremely valuable. In effect, the marketing boards have been operating as statutory co-operatives.
The Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales sent me a useful brief. I am sure that all Members of the Committee recognise that this is a probing amendment, designed to air a problem which is causing concern. The board included some useful figures in relation to distances. There is a tendency to think that all small milk producers are remote. They are not: they can be both small and remote, or they can be just small. It surprised me to see that over 99 per cent. of all dairy producers are located within 30 miles of the nearest buyer of milk and that 43 per cent. of farms are within five miles of the nearest buyer. The statistics, which relate to the nearest large buyers of milk—"large" being defined as in excess of 10,000 litres per day—show that more than 99 per cent. of farms are located within 30 miles of a buyer and 27 per cent. are within five miles. Therefore, remoteness from a dairy is not a serious matter, so long as there are no closures of the processing operations. We must bear that in mind. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether, in considering the reorganisation schemes, he will be asking about the possibility of a change in the pattern of processing points.
We know that the proposals of the new co-operatives and successor bodies in Scotland and Northern Ireland are to buy all milk from all members and to pool the price. However, the very useful brief from the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales is silent on the question of collection and haulage. We have already heard that there is a possibility of alternate day collection from small farms or even of collection every third day. That would mean that small farms may have to buy an extra milk tank. There is also the possibility of discounts for large collections of milk.
Once the commercial pressure is on in the new world and there is a completely free market in milk, the small producer—not always a remote producer —could be disadvantaged by a differential in haulage charges and pick-up arrangements despite the pooling of price, which will be to his advantage.
Can the Minister say whether the Government will examine the reorganisation schemes with that factor in mind? So far as I can see there is nothing in the Bill about equity between producers. Perhaps that is implied by Clause 3(4) (a), which refers to whether a scheme takes account of the interests of consumers of milk and producers of milk. I assume that that means that the Government will look at the scheme in terms of equity between producers. It would be helpful if the Minister would comment on that point.
There is an aspect of social concern. It is fair to point out that in the case of other enterprises associated with small farms, particularly those in remote and disadvantaged areas, such as beef and sheep enterprises, there is no question of the market

121
being asked to solve the problem. Successive governments have recognised the problem by making headage payments directly on hill sheep and hill beef. It may be that if there is a problem in the future and small milk producers in remote areas are disadvantaged in terms of haulage costs, policy in this area may have to be developed as a function of social rather than of agricultural policy.
We would welcome reassurance that the Government will examine the proposals with the question of small producers in mind to ensure that the advantages of price pooling are not being negated by discrimination in transport and pick-up arrangements. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has a point. Any scheme produced should give the co-operatives which succeed the boards a contractual obligation to collect milk at standard prices instead of a statutory obligation. It is an important point. In the days before milk marketing boards, dairy farms nearest the towns were very much favoured and those in outlying districts were disadvantaged.
Lord Geraint: Can we have a definition of a small producer? Is it a question of whether he keeps 10 cows, 50 cows or 100 cows?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I go along with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. I am concerned about the small farms and share the sentiments behind the amendment. What worries me, and perhaps my noble friend may be able to answer the point, is that I do not believe that one can place an obligation on the successor co-operative, which is operating in a commercial market, to support small producers who have been supported by milk marketing boards in the past. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to say that that should be achieved either through government support or some other fund. I do not see how the successor co-operative could do that, much as I should like it to do so.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing forward the issue for discussion. It opens a number of interesting developments. The noble Lord mentioned that not everybody can be a winner and may have hit on the one area where there will be change.
However, I cannot accept an amendment which refers to small producers because, as the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, asked: how does one define those small producers? In addition, a small producer may stop producing milk and end up with a much more efficient business doing something else as a result of the changes in agriculture, such as supplying the milk industry with young stock or keeping them over the winter.
I do not feel that it is appropriate to put this in the Bill. Again, I believe that the Bill needs to allow for the necessary changes in the milk industry to take place. But I think that the Minister should be aware of the potential changes that are to take place for marginal
122
milk producers. The key lies in being a marginal milk producer, wherever you might be or however small or large you might be. If it is no longer appropriate in certain areas to produce milk, these are the very changes that will pressurise people to make a move in their farming activities.
I believe that we will see quite a number of changes. I would have thought that they would be good for the industry as a whole. We are going to move into a very competitive industry. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referring to a letter from a major milk processor, said that there is competition already from other parts of the world to put milk into this marketplace. There is no doubt about it, if we are to end up with a more efficient industry which uses the milk processing and producing facilities at their most efficient. It does not necessarily follow that everybody must he a milk producer. It may well be that the resources and the skills that they can put into the industry as a whole as cattle producers or calf supporters, and in handling different products are needed. I would have thought that the key is not to amend the Bill in any way but for the Minister and the authority generally to understand the effect of this Bill and how it impacts upon various sectors of the industry. They should be aware that some of the social points made may have to be thought about as they come to be noticed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that it is the job of Parliament to think about the small producer of milk. It will most certainly be the Government's job when considering the proposed scheme to assess whether small producers are properly considered by that scheme. For the various reasons that have been given, it is probably very difficult to introduce this amendment into the Bill.
I would draw the Committee's attention to what the milk marketing board has said to me. I believe that it might be misleading for small producers. The milk marketing board says:
"Under the MMB's proposal for the future after revocation of the milk marketing scheme, any producer, irrespective of the location, will be able to become a member of the new co-operative".
I am sure that is so. It goes on to say:
"The co-operative will undertake to buy all the milk of marketable quality of its members".
The milk marketing board may think that that is what the co-operative will do, and it may be that it said so at the beginning of the scheme. But as has been said, it will be for the members of the scheme to determine what happens as time goes on. It may well be that as time goes on the stronger members of the co-operative will prevail and small producers will lose out. The discussion on the amendment is extremely important, but I do not believe that putting the amendment into the Bill is a valid proposition.
Lord Monk Bretton: I have sympathy with the amendment, but I do not believe that we should put it into the Bill. The single co-operative provides certain help for the smaller producer because it runs a national pool from farmers of all sizes in all areas. I see that there are some problems. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned location and transport.

123
When we come to a matter like that, it is what today is colloquially termed a "green box matter", which should be subsidised in some way from funds that are there for that purpose. I think it is important to emphasise that the new co-operative has to get the best price for all members. It has to be a very determined commercial enterprise indeed. It is important not to lose sight of that. I do not want to see the co-operative shackled commercially by carrying loads of this kind. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us that a little assistance in these areas might perhaps come from the green box in due course.
Earl Howe: One of the Ministry of Agriculture's formal objectives is to promote a fair and competitive economy. The Bill will help to achieve this aim by giving all participants in the dairy industry, of all sizes, the freedom to choose how to operate their businesses and allowing them to compete to produce goods which the consumer wants.
Promotion of a fair economy means establishing so far as possible a level playing field on which all can compete on an equal basis. It follows that to discriminate in favour of particular producers because of their size means discriminating against other producers. That defeats the objective. It would run counter to all the efforts which we have made—for example, in resisting unwelcome and discriminating proposals from the European Commission.
Promotion of a competitive economy not only means giving the producers and processors freedom to compete. It also means encouraging the industry to become more economically efficient. The attainment of that aim is not helped if the framework within which the industry operates favours the less efficient.
That is not to say that Ministers would not have regard to the effects which a reorganisation scheme submitted to them by a milk marketing board would have on small producers. As Clause 3(4) (a) stands at present, they would have to have regard to whether a scheme took account of the interests of producers. It is therefore incumbent on them to consider the effects of a scheme on producers in general and on producers with differing circumstances. The Committee can therefore be assured—and I give that assurance—that the interests of all sizes of producers will not be overlooked.
Worry was expressed at Second Reading and indeed this afternoon that ending the statutory marketing schemes would be detrimental to the interests of producers in remote areas. I think that anxiety is overdone. All producers will be eligible to join successor co-operatives under the boards' present proposals. None needs to be left out in the cold. The dispersal of the processing industry around the country is such that virtually no producer is more than about 30 miles from a dairy, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly pointed out. I am confident that producers have nothing to fear from the approach which the Government have adopted.
It may be the case that producers with very small amounts of milk to offer may face higher collection charges. On the other hand they may wish to explore the possibility of alternate day collection or some
124
other solution. There is nothing to be said for trying to neutralise the economic realities of the market. The inefficiencies which have become so evident under the milk marketing schemes provide ample evidence of what happens when market signals are distorted.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, perhaps I may add that the Government would not favour discrimination against any class of producer. But equally—this is a point that I was trying to make —it is not incumbent on a commercial co-operative to cancel out the natural disadvantages of size, remoteness or whatever. The Government have a policy for assisting producers in the uplands and in the less favoured areas. However, the question of whether headage payments might in principle be extended to dairy producers is outside the scope of today's debate, as I hope he will understand.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter will recognise that the amendment could have serious consequences. I know that he regards it as a probing amendment, but if it were accepted Ministers would have to have good reason to approve a reorganisation scheme which did not positively favour small producers. That would not be in the interests of the industry as a whole. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be content with my explanation.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to Members of the Committee. As they will appreciate, there is no intention of putting these words on the face of the Bill. The purpose of this short debate was to bring out a point which has caused anxiety. That anxiety was reflected by everyone who spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, hit the point exactly. We must be careful that we do not give the successor body in England and Wales, the single co-operative, if it is to be, or whatever it is in the other areas, the commercial disadvantage that the smaller more expensive producers will be left with the higher collection costs. With the dairy trade, we may be picking off the big boys and giving them a special deal, leaving the small producer, however defined, to the successor co-operative.
If the Government, in considering the scheme, identify this problem, I hope that it will be flagged as a problem to be examined. The possibility of the green box has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. It should be borne in mind as a factor in policy that if these schemes cause a problem for the small producers—and it need not be the remote producers—they may need some different form of help.
If the problem is identified and it is seen to be unfair on the successor body, which will have to deal with it for commercial reasons, the Government must recognise the problem and have proposals to deal with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, put her finger on it exactly when she said that the rules of the co-operative would be crucial. Everything depends on how the voting power is defined, whether it is on numbers or production. If the big producers find hypothetically that having to "look after" the small producers is to their disadvantage, then under the rules of the co-operative they could exercise their power to remove that disadvantage to themselves. I

125
am sure that that is an area to which the Government will have been alerted when they examine the reorganisation schemes.
I was a little puzzled about the Minister's remark that he would not have discrimination on alternate day collection. I suppose it is not discrimination. It is an ordinary commercial consideration, and I accept that.
I am extremely grateful to Members of the Committee for joining in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8A:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:("both on vesting day and on any subsequent dissolution or winding-up of the successor body or bodies").
The noble Lord said: We can be brief on this amendment. The aim is to clear up a point which has exercised many people. We all understand that if the Government accept the various reorganisation schemes, the successor bodies will be set up, be it under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts or the Companies Acts in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.
There is also the understanding, if it is accepted, that in England and Wales the assets of the milk board, with the exception of Dairy Crest, are likely to be directed to the new co-operative if the Government accept the proposals of the MMB of England and Wales. What is not clear is what happens if the successor bodies fail for any reason—through lack of support, a change in the marketing scenario, bad management or whatever. Where should the assets go? Should they go under the normal rules of a co-operative? If so, they would be distributed to the producers, the members of the successor bodies at the time in proportion to their recent production. If it were suggested that this would not be a problem because if they failed their liabilities would exceed their assets, I point out that if they were well managed they would try to wind up while there was still a surplus of assets over liabilities to be distributed.
I ask the Minister whether the Government have given consideration to this matter. I am prepared to take the amendment away if the Government are prepared to consider the point. They may think that it is too constricting and that they cannot foretell the future.
Anxiety has been expressed about what period should elapse before the successor bodies are left completely to their own devices in the sense that were there to be a dissolution and return of their assets had to be considered, where should the assets go? Should they be returned to all the registered producers on vesting day who helped to share in the build up of the assets over the years?
We can accept the argument at the outset that the assets should be directed to the new co-operative, but if that were to fail in three to five years we are talking about large sums of money. What should happen? Do the Government feel that such a provision should be
126
considered in the reorganisation schemes or are they happy to leave it to the rules of the successor co-operatives? Under those rules, as I understand it, the assets would belong only to the members who joined the successor co-operative. If the numbers were falling in the successor co-operative, it might be to their advantage to wind it up and take the money. It is important that the point should be explained. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has spoken of the possibility that a successor co-operative of the board or some other successor body might he wound up shortly after its creation on the application of its members. In that event, he argues, the members of the co-operative or whatever it is would be able to share out the assets among themselves and anyone who had not joined would be left out in the cold. It may be that I have greater confidence in the plans of the milk marketing boards than Members of the Committee opposite, but I do not see this as a likely eventuality.
There are two possible reasons, to my way of thinking, why a winding up might take place. The first is because the members of a co-operative or other body simply decide that it would be in their interest to liquidate the assets. I do not see that as a real danger. The Government's stance on the issue of reorganisation centres on the belief that after 60 years of living in the closed world of the milk marketing schemes, many, if not the majority of, milk producers have a strongly felt need for some form of collective security.
The Government hope naturally that many producers will take advantage of the new freedoms to explore more adventurous marketing routes, but there will be many who will feel safer in a substantial co-operative. So to suggest that those people are likely to vote to wind up a successor body because they can make a quick profit would, in my view, be an extraordinary assertion.
If a successor body is wound up within a timescale of a few years, it is more likely to be because of business failure. That is the second possibility of which I spoke and to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. In that case, there would be no occasion for rejoicing and maybe even no surplus to distribute. But here, too, I am more optimistic than the noble Lord. I have every confidence that the boards will be able to establish successor bodies which have a viable basis for their operations.
However, I do not believe that that would necessarily be so if some of the amendments tabled today, allowing this or that group to bid for this part or that part of the assets, were accepted. That is one reason why I am opposed to the amendments. I believe that we must have regard in the Bill to the desirability of enabling the boards to set up commercially viable successor bodies.
Ministers must already have regard to whether a reorganisation scheme makes reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to registered producers. Such a distribution could, by the way, take place before vesting day—a possibility which is not taken into account in the noble Lord's amendment. The provision in question, Clause 3(4) (b), is wide enough

127
to enable Ministers to take account of any proposals for the distribution of assets of a successor body on winding up, if such proposals or the absence of them were felt to be relevant.
Two of the Scottish boards have proposed giving all their registered producers a certificate entitling them to a share in the winding up of a successor body if that occurs. The England and Wales board might be persuaded to do the same. If it is helpful to the noble Lord, I shall undertake to seek their views on the matter.
I do not believe, however, that the question of what is a reasonable distribution of assets should be constrained in the manner suggested by the noble Lord's amendment. For one thing, I see difficulty in attempting to constrain the ability of a successor body to alter its constitution so as to negate what a board might propose. But the main consideration is one of principle. What is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another, taking account of all the relevant circumstances. Therefore, the picture must be viewed as a whole.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for airing the issue. As I have promised, I shall consult the England and Wales board. However, for the reasons that I have given I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I did not believe that I would hear M. Pangloss today; that after the new world everything would be for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I was asking on a point of fact about what will happen and what the Government feel should be left out completely from considerations for the reorganisation of the scheme.
As I understand the noble Earl's answer, he said that he will look at the matter to see whether there should be a provision of this kind. I accept that there may not be such a need. However, if there were to be a winding up in a comparatively short period of time, with a surplus, where should the assets go? That is the point of the amendment. The noble Earl understands the point that I am trying to make and he will realise that anxieties have been expressed on this matter. In the light of the answer that I have received, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 10.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 26, leave out from ("assets") to end of line 30.
The noble Lord said: I should say that it is in the highest degree improbable that Amendment No. 9 will be agreed to. The late and celebrated drama critic James Agate once said of a music hall performer called Eddy Gray that his juggling got worse with every performance. I can only say that conversely my admiration for the draftsman of Clause 3(4) (e) grows each time I read it. It has an almost impenetrable
128
ambiguity factor. The purpose of proposing the deletion of the clause is not to weaken the Bill but to try to get the Minister to tell us more about what it means in the hope that we can rest peacefully tonight and on subsequent nights until we have disposed of this important Bill.
The discussion which we want with the Minister this afternoon is on the criteria which the authority proposes to satisfy itself about; namely, that the structure of any scheme which he is being asked to approve is such as to avoid challenge in the courts,
"on competition grounds, with any reasonable likelihood of success, as soon as they come into operation".
We are assuming that that wording, which is of considerable importance, has been discussed, however informally, with the enforcement authorities. I have in mind the Director-General of Fair Trading, the President of the Board of Trade and possibly even the competition division of the European Community. If those discussions have taken place we should like to know, without asking for details, whether any assurances have been given to the Minister about the wording of this clause. If assurances have been given, can we be told in general terms what they are about? Are they strong or has it merely been said, "Set up your single co-operative in England and Wales with a share of trade which we cannot quantify at present and we shall look at it when it is in operation, based on its conduct and the share of trade which it actually achieves"?
If there is an early and successful challenge to the scheme in the courts, will that lead to the revocation of the scheme so challenged and will other schemes based on the scheme that has been challenged also be revoked? In moving the amendment, I invite the Minister to tell us rather more about the clause than was said in his reply to the Second Reading debate, ample and comprehensive though that was in many respects. We believe that there is a vagueness and ambiguity about the clause. We should like the Minister to take advantage of this opportunity to explain its details more clearly to us. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, on this matter. I do not necessarily agree that the amendment should be carried but it is important for the industry to understand more fully what the Government have in mind as regards this clause.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should be grateful if my noble friend could enlighten us on whether this wording is well clothed in the garments of precedent. If it were otherwise, it would be exceedingly difficult, even for him with his considerable skill, to justify its presence in the Bill. For myself, I am not easily persuaded that precedent is necessarily an invincible argument but I greatly admire the delicacy with which the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, posed his questions about this rather odd wording.
I am anxious to know whether, if it must be there at all, the point could not be covered by much simpler wording; for example, a requirement that the law of competition should be complied with. If that is so, I go

129
on to ask whether that is necessary at all because one assumes that the law would be complied with, without saying that it should be.
I find this matter very puzzling. I hope that my noble friend will devote his talents to explaining why those extraordinary words are necessary, where we can find them used elsewhere and whether they have ever been useful.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Like my noble friend, I was puzzled when I read this paragraph because it seems to pose a very curious question for decision. Like my noble friend, I should like to know whether there is any precedent for it. I do not recall any, but that does not count for much because I do not pretend to have a compendious knowledge of our mass of legislation at this time. It would be interesting to know whether there is any precedent.
It is extraordinary that what must be taken into account is not whether the arrangements would be challenged but whether they would be challenged,
"with any reasonable likelihood of success".
Surely that involves almost setting up a case of challenge and discovering whether or not that is a strong case. I am puzzled by this and I am extremely doubtful as to its necessity. I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend says.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have less experience in such matters than my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter but I suggest that there is some merit in this paragraph. Should a scheme be set up which contravenes competition law, or should the scheme be free to change its ways so as to contravene such law, there could be a period of time before that position could be corrected. The law works slowly. It would be quite wrong to allow a scheme to be set up which could operate against competition law and use unfair practices to achieve for itself a strong position before the law is able to take effect. It seems to me that the successor body might use the one or two years before the law could take effect to put itself in a position in the market which would be difficult to redress afterwards. Whether or not the wording is correct, I believe that there should be such a provision in the Bill.
Lord Hylton: It is possible that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, may have put her finger on the reason why the word "structure" in line 27 is necessary. If she has not, that word may appear to be otiose.
Earl Howe: In bringing forward the provisions in this part of the Bill the Government are seeking to introduce the normal commercial freedoms into the market in milk. It is important both for consumers and for those whose jobs and livelihoods depend on the continuing vitality of the dairy industry that the new arrangements should permit free and fair competition.
Ministers will therefore wish to consider carefully the competition implications of a reorganisation scheme when deciding whether it should be approved. Clause 3(4) (e) was specifically designed with that in mind. In answer to my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I am not aware that there has
130
been a precedent. The deletion of Clause 3(4) (e), as proposed by the amendment, would leave a serious hole in the factors to which the Bill would require Ministers to have specific regard when considering a reorganisation scheme.
I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, that the wording of the subsection makes its precise impact a little obscure and I shall attempt to explain it clearly. There is a distinction to be drawn for competition purposes between the structure of any proposed new arrangements—a matter which is capable of being assessed in advance—and the actual trading behaviour of any proposed successor bodies which it is intended should trade in milk.
In so far as those behavioural aspects can be prejudged, the Bill makes provision in Clause 3(2) (c) for agriculture Ministers to take a view. The boards will have to show that they can come up with proposals for fair trading systems which take account of the interests of purchasers, a group which will cover milk processors and other food manufacturers who purchase milk. But the actual competitive behaviour of the successor bodies can only be judged after vesting day and it will be for the competition authorities, not agriculture Ministers, to monitor them and to deal with any instances of anticompetitive behaviour or unfair trading.
The wording of Clause 3(4) (e) seeks to underline the fact that once the milk marketing schemes are revoked, Ministers' current responsibilities in respect of the milk marketing boards come to an end and it is the competition authorities who step on to centre stage. On the other hand, it also recognises that Ministers can, and indeed should, take a view of the structural implications of what is proposed under a reorganisation scheme, in so far as they are able. The likelihood of a successful challenge in court under European law or British law is a matter on which Ministers can reasonably take a view, particularly as the EC Commission is itself willing to take a position in relation to specific proposals and to make its views known. As Members know, the EC Commissioner responsible for competition has written to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture about the proposal of the England and Wales board.
In answer to the noble Lord, he accepted the principle of a single voluntary successor co-operative in the form proposed by the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales, subject to a review of the competition implications after two years of its operation. Clause 3(4) (e) therefore amounts to a reasonably practicable test for Ministers to undertake.
Members of the Committee may ask whether that test should extend to the question of whether the new arrangements contemplated by a reorganisation scheme are likely to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by the Director General of Fair Trading. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Mottistone, tabled an amendment to that effect. I made clear at Second Reading that the present restriction on the powers of the director general to refer milk marketing arrangements for consideration by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be removed when the milk marketing schemes are revoked. That will be

131
done by statutory instrument under the Fair Trading Act. The possibility of a reference is therefore a real one.
The actual likelihood of a reference by the competition authorities, on the other hand, is fairly unpredictable. Reference is a matter for the discretion of the Director General of Fair Trading. The Office of Fair Trading does not, as a matter of principle, give judgments on whether such a reference is likely in relation to a specific proposal. Still less does it issue letters of comfort. Similarly, the decision of the MMC as to whether specific structures or practices are against the public interest is something on which Ministers cannot reasonably be expected to form a view. If they were required to, and a reference to the MMC occurred for one of the successor bodies, there could be unfortunate consequences under judicial review procedure with wide-ranging implications.
However, I should point out that Ministers are none the less required to have regard to all the circumstances in Clause 3(4).
It is the Government's clear intention that, following revocation of the milk marketing schemes, the same rules should apply to milk as any other sector and any successor body of a milk marketing board should be subject to effective regulation under EC and UK competition law. In that respect, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the recently published Green Paper discussing options for strengthening the law to curb anti-competitive practices in the market place. The Government's resolve on that matter should not be doubted.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the Committee that Clause 3(4) (e) is an important provision of the Bill. I therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend has done his best. I am grateful to him for pointing out the words at the beginning of Clause 3(4),
"shall have regard to all the circumstances".
I should like to know why the words, "all the circumstances" do not comprehend the structure of the new arrangements. Though I admire the delicacy with which my noble friend approached the problem, I find it difficult to distinguish between the structure of arrangements and the arrangements themselves. They all seem to me to be part of the whole.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may mention the question of precedent. Like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I was interested to hear that there was no precedent for this form of words. In that case, I feel I would be doing some slight service to posterity were I to appeal to my noble friend to get rid of this silly wording. Otherwise, someone less respectable and virtuous than himself may sit on the Front Bench in the future and say, "There is a precedent for this and noble Lords must accept it". I hope that we shall not be put in that position.
Baroness Seear: I may be the perfect fool in these matters, as I believe St. Paul said. Reading the provisions, do they say anything except that the
132
authorities should be careful that they are not breaking the law? If so, it is an odd thing to put into legislation.
Earl Howe: My noble friend Lord Peyton asked a number of questions. First, why the phrase, "all the circumstances" could not be taken to embrace the words contained in Clause 3(4) (e). The simple answer is that while we may say that those words may embrace that message, it is important to put on the face of the Bill the specific considerations to which a Minister should have regard. I do not believe that any noble Lord would wish to see omitted from the face of the Bill any of the provisions contained in Clause 3. I must concede that "all the circumstances" is a stock phrase; but it is there for a reason and has some force.
My noble friend also questioned the difference between the structure of arrangements, which the Bill specifically addresses, and the arrangements themselves. There is a real difference between the two. The Bill deliberately steers clear of the arrangements themselves. We have said that those arrangements are a matter for the boards to propose to Ministers. We shall not prejudge those proposals in any way.
With regard to eradicating the words altogether on the grounds that there is no precedent for them, I do not believe that my noble friend is fully serious. I would add that a judgment was passed by your Lordships' House a few days ago which enables a court of law to take account of what a Minister says at the Dispatch Box, in support of any specific piece of legislation. I believe that the phrase which is part of the Bill will not stand in isolation. A judge will refer to my pearls of comment if he needs to.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am a man of infinite compassion and mercy. I want to spare Her Majesty's judges the pain of even considering such rubbish.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am very sorry that my noble friend takes that view. I have no quarrel at all with the wording. I shall be interested to know whether any other Members of the Committee take the same view as my noble friend. I believe that the words serve a very positive purpose. I have tried to explain the force of those words and what they apply to. It is the structure of the new arrangements which we are addressing rather than the behaviour of any successor body in the market. That structure is something which Ministers can reasonably consider when taking into account current UK and EC competition law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend had so many questions to answer understandably he did not answer the one that I put to him. Will he deal with the point that I was seeking to make earlier? The Minister is being asked under this subsection to decide what a court would decide. The passage in the subsection,
"their being challenged in court … with any reasonable likelihood of success"
is asking the Minister to perform the judicial function of deciding as to whether such a challenge is legally valid. I do not think that the recent very sensible decision of your Lordships' House in Judicature to which he referred, has any bearing on the matter. It is

133
an extraordinary provision in a statute. Perhaps my noble friend will recall the words taken from The Merchant of Venice:
"'Twill be recorded for a precedent,
And many an error by the same example
Will creep into the state".
Earl Howe: Oh dear! My noble friend has very real doubts. As I mentioned earlier, we have a very real letter of comfort from the EC Commission. It enables the Minister to take the view that were a single successor co-operative to be established it would not infringe Articles 85 or 86 of the treaty. I believe that is something which this clause is meant to take into account. I can go no further than that. I hope that my noble friend sees the point that I am making.
Lord Bonham-Carter: Will the Minister answer the question put by my noble friend? He said that all this clause amounted to was an admonition not to break the law.
Earl Howe: If we glossed over those aspects in new legislation that we felt were important simply by referring to the existing legislation or competition law or practice, we would have a great deal of very woolly legislation. There is real point in trying to insert into the Bill those matters to which Ministers should have particular regard. I hope that the noble Baroness was not completely serious in the point that she made. As I said before, I do not believe that any noble Lord would wish to see Clause 3 omitted from the Bill.
Lord Carter: Before my noble friend Lord Gallacher decides what to do about the amendment, perhaps I may refer to the "letter of comfort" mentioned by the Minister from Sir Leon Brittan. I wonder whether he is aware of the final paragraph of that letter which states:
"It goes without saying that my view with respect to the proposed arrangements is without prejudice to the procedural rights of the Boards, the successor co-operatives and/or the future members in case of notification of the arrangements, and of any third parties which might complain against the new regime".
That is rather an odd kind of letter of comfort.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: Is not the point that the Milk Marketing Board, as it exists at present, does not have to comply with competition law? Obviously therefore, the Minister believes it appropriate to put into the Bill that any successor body will have to comply with all competition law. That is reasonable. Clearly, the Minister realises that, from the views expressed in Committee, we are not satisfied that the way the clause is worded makes that sufficiently clear. Perhaps there is a way forward. The Minister may like to consider the matter again and bring forward an amendment which is more acceptable to the Committee.
Earl Howe: I do take note of the views expressed in Committee. They are views expressed by noble Lords with far more experience in these matters than I have. I shall be more than happy to take away this part of the Bill and look at it to see whether it fulfils the purpose that we want and whether we can come
134
forward with something better. I make no commitment to that effect. I shall certainly put this matter at the top of my list to see whether there is a better form of words that we can use.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful to the noble Earl for undertaking to look at this clause without commitment. When I tabled the amendment I did not expect to get that far. Perhaps I may say in passing that I believe that he handled a very difficult subject with considerable skill.
Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord Gallacher: I can say in truth that this is one occasion when I shall read Hansard carefully to see what the Minister had to say, not with a view to coming back at Report stage, but simply in the hope that light will dawn. If it fails to do so, I may come back to this matter on Report. Before doing so I shall seek the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and, failing him, I shall try the Almighty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 29, after ("challenged") insert ("by any competition authority").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10 I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 23. As regards Amendment No. 10, I have been advised by the Food and Drink Federation. For Amendment No. 23 I have to declare an interest in that I have been advised by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate & Confectionery Alliance which I have been advising for about 15 years.
Both these amendments return to the subject of competition. We have gone over a great deal of the ground when discussing the previous amendment. I shall seek not to duplicate what has been said. I said earlier that I thought it strange that the Milk Marketing Board was being asked to devise its own execution. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that he did not see it as execution, but as re-birth. Perhaps a phoenix rising from the ashes might be another way of looking at it.
The even stronger difficulty about this matter is that, however it is done, it is one monopoly replacing another. It is the monopoly situation which I find particularly difficult. When we were debating Amendment No. 2 in relation to Amendment No. 18, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked what I meant by producer groups. I mean producer co-operatives, but in the plural. The scheme should say how many. Two would be too little and 200 would he too many. That is the kind of pattern we need so that we get competition.
Turning to Amendment No. 10, I have to confess that it has one small and important error. It should read:
"Page 3, line 29, after ("challenged") insert ("by any competition authority or")".
That "or" was dropped out somewhere along the line and I failed to see it. Therefore, that part of the subsection should read,
"by any competition authority or in court on competition grounds"

135
which makes a slight difference. I hope that that is not too difficult for my noble friend the Minister.
I turn to what I believe is the reason for adding the words,
"by any competition authority or".
At the moment it is not adequate for re-organisaton schemes to be judged in anti-competitive terms only against court action. The likelihood of complaints being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading or the European Commission should also be considered as criteria for assessing competitiveness.
I noted that my noble friend quoted from what Sir Leon Brittan had written to him which he said had given him great comfort. Although I shall not bother to read them out, in effect Sir Leon's opening remarks were, "If it were left to me, I would complain about it being a monopoly". He then went on to say why he had been convinced by everybody that it was "just okay". I gained the impression of "only just okay" throughout the letter and I am sure that anybody who reads it would come to the same conclusion.
Moreover, the intention to monitor the new scheme once in operation and the mechanisms for doing so are unclear. My advisers in the Food and Drink Federation particularly asked me to see whether my noble friend would give assurances that the new scheme would be subject to the same application of competition rules as other economic operators. Periodic reports on the scheme's operation from the Office of Fair Trading or at least a report at the end of the first two years would also be welcome.
I turn now to Amendment No. 23. Although there was no collusion between the BCCCA and the FDF, the BCCCA has come up with the answer to what my remarks on the previous amendment established as being the first question. Amendment No. 23 seeks to insert into the Bill a small new clause stating:
"The Director General of Fair Trading shall, within a period of two years after the establishment of any scheme, conduct an investigation … to establish whether it shall be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission".
That is an example of what people are really worried about. We come back to the fact that we are going from one monopoly situation to another. I cannot but suggest to the Committee that all our experience of privatisations in the past 10 years or so has shown that where there is no competition afterwards, notwith-standing the establishment of all kinds of regulatory authorities to try to put in a fair test (such as Oftel looking after British Telecom) privatisations have not really created the image of there being properly competitive companies among those big monopoly organisations. Until we get that, we shall not get fair treatment for the customer. Even this very last week, I had a silly little argument with British Telecom which I am very doubtful that I should have had if BT had been a private company with competitors because it would have known that I could have gone to its competitors.
Therefore, whatever my noble friend may feel officially at the moment, I believe that an extra clause along the lines of my Amendment No. 23 would be a very useful underpinning of the Bill. It is a modest amendment. It does not state that action must be
136
taken, but that there must be an investigation to see whether action should be taken. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to say that he will take the provisions away and return with something like that, but perhaps with different and better wording.
In the meantime, Amendment No. 10 works on the same lines. I suggest, however, in the context of what my noble friend said that he would do when dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher's Amendment No. 9, that this amendment might also be looked at again. When my noble friend looks again at subsection (4) (e), perhaps I may suggest that he looks again at Amendment No. 10 at the same time. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may raise just one point on Amendment No. 23. It seems possible that it might impose a time limit on the Director General of Fair Trading in respect of his possible action by way of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. By instructing that the investigation should be carried out within a period of two years, it gives rise to the argument that after two years had elapsed it would not be possible to take that action. If my noble friend the Minister suggests that that is a restriction upon the Director General of Fair Trading, I would very much regret it.
Lord Hylton: I tend to look on these two amendments with some suspicion because I do not think that when the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, compared the Milk Marketing Board with national monopolies pre-privatisation he was comparing like with like. We know that the milk marketing board at present has some statutory powers, but its successor co-operative will not have them and will therefore be a totally different animal again, so we have three entities which are not comparable.
Baroness O'Cathain: I should like to support Amendment No. 10, but not necessarily Amendment No. 23. There is a genuine feeling that substituting one monopoly with another is not good news. I am led to believe that the largest milk processor has some 28 per cent. of the market and there is a feeling among certain sectors of the consumer movement that the largest co-operative involved in milk supply should not have more than 28 per cent. of the market.
Having said that, however, I think that having a single large co-operative as a successor to the milk marketing board would cause total chaos. I am not sure that the processing industry—and certainly not the consumer—would be best served by that development. To try to alleviate the genuine concern which is felt—and this is not just an antagonistic view taken by other sectors of the milk industry as is—it would be a good idea to insert the words which are suggested in Amendment No. 10.
I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that imposing a time-limit would probably stop the natural development of the successor body to the milk marketing board—I am talking about in England and Wales—by constantly making it feel that it faced a time limit of just two

137
years. It might feel that it would probably be better to do nothing instead of getting on with taking the bull by the horns (that is probably the wrong metaphor to use) and taking action to begin to look for ways of producing the goods that the customer actually wants.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I, too, have sympathy with Amendment No. 10, but as it amends provisions which we have already discussed and which the Minister has already agreed to take a fresh look at, it seems appropriate not to push the amendment at this stage but, as has been said, to let the Minister have another look at it.
I certainly support the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lords, who have spoken on Amendment No. 23. It seems to me that we want to include as little regulatory input in the Bill as possible. We must allow natural forces to do what they can. It is important to note that, under the Bill, the organised milk marketing board will have to act extremely efficiently if it is to have customers. It is not true that people are waiting to see what happens. Many organisations are already out there, trying to convince the milk producers to sell or to agree to sell their milk to them. Clearly, there is already a very competitive spirit among milk purchasers. There is no need to put anything else in the Bill, such as regulations that would make things more difficult. I do not think that that is appropriate. The fewer provisions that we have to that effect in the Bill, the better for business as a whole.
Lord Gallacher: I go along with the Members of the Committee who have said that Amendment No. 10 is probably acceptable even in its amended version. I liked it better before the word "or" was added to the amendment. Nevertheless, I think we can take it that it is now in a sense subsumed by the fresh look at the clause which the Minister has agreed to take, without commitment.
I am distinctly unhappy about Amendment No. 23. First, I am not sure whether Parliament has the power to pass an amendment of this kind. The Director General of Fair Trading has his authority under the Fair Trading Act. Quite apart from the disadvantages which have rightly been stressed of specifying a time limit, it would be a dangerous precedent for Parliament to be seeking in this Bill to direct the Director of Fair Trading specifically to look at any organisation. His responsibilities in that regard are, as I see it, ongoing. Therefore, I would not be at all in favour of the incorporation of Amendment No. 23 into the Bill.
Earl Howe: As I explained, the Government clearly recognise their duty to establish fair terms of competition. The Bill provides for initial scrutiny of that question by the agriculture Ministers. Once the foundations are laid, however—I say this in answer to my noble friend's question—responsibility for regulating the market will fall to the competition authorities in accordance with the same arrangements that apply to all other sectors under normal EC and UK competition law.
138
In providing for new milk marketing arrangements, the Government must seek to avoid any solution which inherently inhibited competition and stifled the industry's new freedoms. If not, what would be the point of these reforms? Clause 3(4) (e), controversial as the wording may be, attempts to address the point. It requires Ministers to consider the structure of the new arrangements at the time they come into operation and in particular the question of whether they are likely to be challenged successfully in a court of law. Such a challenge would be most likely to focus on Article 85 of the EC Treaty. As I made clear earlier, that is something on which Ministers can reasonably be expected to, and indeed would want to, take an informed view.
Amendment No. 10 addresses the issue of whether the Bill should extend to the question of whether the new arrangements contemplated by a reorganisation scheme are likely to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission by the Director General of Fair Trading. As I said in answer to the previous amendment, the present restriction on the powers of the director general to refer milk marketing arrangements for consideration by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be removed by statutory instrument when the milk marketing schemes are revoked. The possibility of a reference is therefore a real one. Conversely, the actual likelihood of a reference by the competition authorities cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Reference is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. It is completely within his discretion.
The Office of Fair Trading does not, as a matter of principle, make pronouncements on whether such a reference is likely in relation to a particular proposal. Nor, as I made clear earlier, does it issue letters of comfort. Similarly, any decision by the MMC as to whether specific structures or practices are against the public interest is not a matter on which Ministers can reasonably be expected to form a view. If they were required to form a view, as the amendment proposes, and a reference to the MMC did occur for one of the successor bodies, the likelihood of an unfavourable judicial review would be a real one, with all the damaging implications that that carries with it.
My legal advice is, therefore, that it would be unwise to make this one of the matters to which Ministers must explicitly have particular regard in deciding whether to approve a scheme of reorganisation. Nonetheless, I remind my noble friend—this is intended to be something of a reassurance even though I repeat myself—that Ministers are required to have regard to all the circumstances under Clause 3(4), with everything that that implies.
I hope that my noble friend will have looked upon this as a probing amendment—I am sure that he does —and that my response will have satisfied him as to why we do not think it appropriate to have a reference to the competition authorities. I have no doubt that those authorities will be vigilant in the immediate period after vesting day and beyond and I think that we can rely on them to operate under the normal regulatory framework which they apply to all industries in the market place.

139
I turn briefly to my noble friend's second amendment, Amendment No. 23, which proposes an investigation of the successor scheme during the first two years. I hope he will agree that there is no need for it. There is absolutely no danger of the Director General of Fair Trading overlooking the fact that the new milk marketing arrangements have been introduced. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. I would say to my noble friend that the Office of Fair Trading finds it an objectionable amendment in that it might be held to fetter the director general's discretion under the Fair Trading Act. Therefore, in the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will wish to reconsider the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend and to other noble Lords who have spoken. What they have said clarifies these approaches. It will be most reassuring to those who have spoken to me that, so far from there being a need for Amendment No. 23 it will in effect be in place from the word go in the normal nature of things. That is most reassuring. I take the other points that my noble friend made. I am happy therefore to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert ("; and
( ) whether the scheme contains reasonable provisions in respect of milk trading by any successor body.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I have made note of the fact that Clause 3(4) lists a number of issues to which the authority shall have regard. The list refers to various sectors of the industry. I am aware that the Minister has agreed to add processors into paragraph (a). Even so, I feel that there needs to be a better balance in the clause. That is why I suggest that there should be an extra paragraph (f) to insert the words:
"whether the scheme contains reasonable provisions in respect of milk trading by any successor body".
We have referred to many aspects of milk purchasers and milk trading activities during the course of the Committee stage but that has mostly been in the light of what we know the industry now does and what it has done in the past. We must also accept that these changes will bring about new opportunities for different uses of milk and for different kinds of purchasers. It is important that within this clause we ask the Minister and the authority to refer to this aspect when agreeing a reorganisation scheme.
I believe that there is a further need for the Minister to look at this aspect. At the end of the day we have to make sure that milk is traded and marketed in the most efficient way in terms of those who buy it and those who produce it. I appreciate that the question of the importance of the purchaser is referred to in other parts of the Bill but I believe that the amendment would strengthen the case even more and give confidence to those who are looking now for new ways of creating activities in milk at all levels of the industry. I am well aware of people who are looking in an innovative way at how milk can be utilised and have margin added to it.
I urge the Minister to look at this carefully. Although I shall not take the matter any further, I should be most grateful if he would give it serious consideration. If he cannot accept the amendment now, perhaps we can have a discussion about it before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I can understand the noble Lord's argument but I am not sure why he is not satisfied with Clause 2(2) (c), which states:
"a statement, in relation to each successor body proposed to be engaged in milk trading, of the practices proposed to be adopted by it with respect to such trading".
That is carried over into Clause 3(2) (c) which provides that the practices have to take account of the interests of purchasers of milk. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply, but I should have thought that those two paragraphs would cover the important point made by the noble Lord.
6 p.m.
Earl Howe: The amendment would require Ministers to have regard to the provisions in a reorganisation scheme in respect of milk trading when deciding whether to approve that scheme. However, I should point out that a reorganisation scheme would not include any provisions concerning trading. Schedule 1 requires a scheme to provide for the disposition of the property, rights and liabilities of a milk marketing board. That is deliberate. We intend there to be a clear break between the boards and their successors. Trade will not be transferred by a reorganisation scheme except perhaps the trade of commercial bodies such as Dairy Crest. It is planned that contracts between the boards and producers on the one hand and purchasers on the other will end on vesting day.
However, as I have already made clear, Ministers will wish to pay great attention to the impact of the reorganisation on processors and other purchasers. It is precisely for those reasons that Clause 2(2) (d), to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, rightly, drew our attention, requires an application for approval of a reorganisation scheme to include a statement of the proposed selling arrangements of each proposed successor body which would trade in milk and, also, of why the board believes that those practices take account of the interests of milk purchasers. That will enable Ministers to consider the implications of the scheme for the market in milk. The statement will not formally be a part of the reorganisation scheme; but if Ministers cannot be satisfied that the practices contained in that statement take account of the interests of purchasers of milk, they must refuse to grant the application for approval.
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward the amendment because it draws attention to an important point. However, in the light of my explanation, I hope that he will feel that he can withdraw it.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. In view of his remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert ("; and
( ) whether the scheme makes provision for the appointment of three members of the board of directors of the scheme to represent the interests of consumers of milk from a list of names supplied by the appropriate authority after consultation with organisations representing consumers.").
The noble Lord said: In support of the amendment, I should like to pray in aid the Cadbury Committee on company law which is of increasing importance as a document, not least because of the continuing European Community interest in two-tier boards which, as I understand it, the United Kingdom Government dislike. The text of the Cadbury Committee Report on the best code of practice for companies recommends three non-executive directors as appropriate. Thus, the amendment accepts and anticipates legislation in that area affecting companies as a whole.
If a single producer co-operative is established to handle milk in England and Wales, it is essential that it should be —and be seen to be—above suspicion in both a commercial and administrative sense. Being a co-operative does not, of itself, render it immune from the provisions of the Fair Trading Act or the Competition Act—a point already well made during our deliberations this afternoon—neither is there any solace for a single co-operative to be found in the recent Green Paper on the abuse of market power.
The co-operative will reassure itself and the supervising authorities if, being an association of producers, it deliberately appoints three persons as directors who have specific consumer commitment and credibility. Having seen the Milk Marketing Board's comments on the amendment, it is time that the board in England and Wales discarded its blinkers and current tendency towards authoritarianism. Good will, in my experience and opinion, is precious to a co-operative society. The amendment is one way of achieving that. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support the amendment. Consumers' views can be taken only if there is some proper consumer interest on the boards. For too long the farmers' co-operative movement in this country has fallen apart because it has not considered the consumers. I hope that the MMBs' successor bodies would have the consumer at the forefront of their minds all the time. The only problem that I have with the amendment is: who will appoint the three non-executive directors to represent consumer interests? I hope that they will not be taken from the list of the great and the good upon which the same old names keep cropping up for the same old jobs. Then, lethargy steps in. It is a valuable amendment. I hope that the Minister will take it on board.
Earl Howe: As I explained on Second Reading, one of the philosophies behind the Bill is that on the ending of the milk marketing schemes the milk industry should operate within the same commercial regulatory framework as other industries. Successor bodies to the milk marketing boards would be subject to scrutiny by the normal regulatory authorities both in the United Kingdom and in the European Commission. To that end the Government will
142
remove the present restriction on the Director-General of Fair Trading referring the wholesale sale of milk to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the ending of the milk marketing schemes. The amendment, on the other hand, seems to assume that there will be no protection for consumers of milk and milk products against any activities of any successor bodies to the milk marketing boards after the ending of the milk marketing schemes. Clearly, that will not be the case. Consumers would be afforded the full protection of the normal rules on competition and consumer protection.
The amendment is also inconsistent with the structure of the Bill. Agriculture Ministers would have responsibility under the Bill for deciding whether to grant an application from a milk marketing board for approval of a reorganisation scheme. One of the intentions of the Bill is that they would no longer have a special role in overseeing the milk industry. It therefore follows that they should not be involved in the activities of any successor body to a milk marketing board.
But there is another, very practical, reason why the amendment will not do. As I have said before, I cannot prejudge what decisions Ministers might take on any reorganisation scheme submitted to them. However, on their present proposals a number of the milk marketing boards are likely to propose the establishment of co-operatives registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. The Registry of Friendly Societies operates well-established principles that have been in existence since 1939 in deciding whether a co-operative is registrable under the 1965 Act. One of the principles used by the registry to determine whether a bona fide co-operative is registrable is that control is vested in its members. One method of ensuring that is to require that all members of the committee of a co-operative are elected from the membership. The registry therefore does not register a society of which one or more members of the committee are not members of the co-operative itself.
The result of the amendment would be to require those milk marketing boards which are currently proposing the establishment of a co-operative registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to rethink their proposals radically. That would deal a severe blow to the aims and aspirations of many dairy farmers in this country, and I am sure that that is not the objective of the noble Lord who proposed it. I hope my explanation of the implications of the amendment will persuade him to withdraw it.
Lord Gallacher: I am grateful for the fact that the Minister's objections are technical rather than objections in principle. That enables me to say that I am doubly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her support of the principle underlying the amendment. As to who would choose from the list of the great and the good, I can only say that the amendment would give the milk marketing co-operative a choice of a number of names. There is no intention that the Minister should have any say in the matter. He would consult the organisations that I am sure are well known to him. Indeed, thanks to the

143
endeavours of this side of the Chamber, we have at long last managed to get a consumer committee from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I follow its activities with considerable interest. However, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that there is a danger with the great and the good, even in the field of consumerism. Nevertheless, that is a risk that I am prepared to run in the interest of having consumers on the boards of the co-operatives.
There is a technical argument. First, if what the Minister is saying is that the organisation is likely to register under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 rather than the Companies Act, which is another option available under the Bill, I can only say that I am pleased and surprised, because I think that my noble friend Lord Carter, who has taken on himself the burden of trying to guide the listed co-operative movements in Britain into a revision of the 1965 Act, will find that that is a problem of monumental difficulty, not least because of the failure of the co-operatives currently registered under the Act to agree what changes they would like to see.
Nevertheless, the Act as it stands is not as prohibitive as the noble Earl made out. There is no good reason why, if the co-operative producers organisation wishes to have three co-operative consumers as directors, they could not become directors for the duration of their term of service on the board. There is no good reason why they could not be co-opted if the rules made provision to that effect. If this were not a fairly public occasion I could give the noble Earl a classic example of where such a provision exists, but I do not wish to say more about that because I would incur the severe displeasure of an organisation which is currently a beneficiary from the indulgence of the registry in accepting such a society.
I think it is perfectly proper. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was right in saying that the producer movement will need to recognise the existence of consumers in its structures. For that matter the consumer movement in turn will one day come to terms with the fact that the producer organisations have something to contribute to its deliberations. I shall bear in mind what the noble Earl said. It has been a useful discussion. I cannot promise to come back to the matter at Report, but at least I have said my piece and I hope that the Milk Marketing Board will take note. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert ("; and
("( ) whether the scheme makes a proper definition of those ancillary services which are to be carried out by a development council set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 and of those ancillary services which are to be carried out by successor bodies.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is intended to deal with the definition of those ancillary services which are to be carried out by the milk development council, which has been mentioned as a possibility under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947 and has been touched on a number of times
144
in the debate today, and those ancillary services that are to be carried out by successor bodies, or perhaps hived off in commercial arrangements.
I welcome the change of heart of the Government towards the idea of development councils. They have long been a favourite of mine for development in agriculture. Over the years I can think of a number of examples where I have been engaged professionally. I can think of the British Agricultural Marketing Development Organisation in the early 1970s which we tried to set up under the 1947 Act, and the Oilseeds Development Council, which we also tried to set up. There was no way that the government of the time intended to accept development councils, so I am pleased to see that there has now been a change of heart.
I think the Minister indicated at Second Reading that the Government would welcome proposals for a milk development council to be set up and run from vesting day. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that is correct. If that is to be the case, then the industry should start work immediately on the design of such a council. The amendment asks for a proper definition. It is important that we hear what the successor bodies propose for such things as their considerable involvement in research and development. There is the animal data centre, and the debate over national milk records, which has now lost its subvention from the MMB, and whether that should be left to the successor body or should be a part of the animal data centre.
There are such things as generic promotion. I shared the reservations of a number of noble Lords at Second Reading about the value of generic promotion. If there were to be such an activity, presumably it would not be a natural for the milk development council. I am a little sceptical of the value of promoting a product in a market which is under supplied, because you tend also to promote the value of the imported product as well.
There is also the valuable work carried out by the National Dairy Council in education, information, in relation to consumers, issues management, market research, nutrition, statistics and the rest of it. All of these should be looked at when the Government are considering the nature of the reorganisation schemes and the services that they should provide. It is a job for the Government to ensure that proper consideration is given to these matters.
Obviously the Minister is not able to prejudge, but in broad terms can he indicate those services that he thinks might be appropriate for the development council, those that should be hived off and handle their own commercial activities, and those that should remain with successor bodies? If there were some new activities in the future, then it would be up to the milk council, if it was formed, to come forward with its own proposals in that area.
I am a strong supporter of development councils. They are appropriate in agriculture, which is an industry of small units that often has to undertake things on behalf of the whole industry. The principle of a statutory levy collection procedure to ensure that all producers pay for that which is defined as

145
benefiting all producers is an excellent idea. We welcome also the proposals in Clause 51, and the sensible change about the collection of levies.
With all that to consider, I hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication of the way he sees the debate developing over those services that should be looked after by a milk development council, if there is one, and those that should remain with successor bodies, or indeed be hived off completely. I beg to move the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: The work of the animal data centre is of great importance to the industry and to the dairy industry. That is also the case with the work of national milk records. National milk records has recently lost its subvention. I believe that we record officially about half our dairy cattle. The Dutch record 75 per cent. of theirs; the Irish manage to record only about 8 per cent. Most countries, including the Dutch, give assistance by means of subventions to national milk records. It is not paid for merely by the owners of the cattle having them recorded.
I do not want our country, because of the changes happening now, to become also rans like Ireland. I want us to continue to have a broad base of recorded cattle. It is important from the point of view of the proving of progeny of bulls, and so forth. We want to be in the van in that and not bringing up the rear. I am not sure that a development council might not become too discursive an organisation over the issue. We have to be careful about the extent of levying on milk prices that will occur. It is something we have to bear down on pretty hard.
The Milk Marketing Board was careful. I fear that a development council could widen the window and that that might be rather dangerous. I hope that a satisfactory solution can be found and that our milk recording and animal data centre will continue from strength to strength. We have to make sure that we have the ground work right.
Baroness O'Cathain: I should also like to support this amendment but only on the basis of asking the Minister to try to include in the final document a list of those activities which would be supported. I take it that this is not the time to debate whether or not one should have a development council or maintain NMR. I believe that NMR and the Animal Data Centre have a very good case, but I am already on record at Second Reading as saying that I am very dubious indeed about National Dairy Council's generic advertising. Anything like that tends to get the lowest common denominator rather than the highest common factor. But for the future of the agricultural industry in this country as opposed to the milk industry it is imperative that the Animal Data Centre and NMR should be maintained by subvention.
Earl Howe: The effect of this amendment is to require a reorganisation scheme to deal with the disposition of ancillary services—a term which I am sure has been deliberately left undefined —as between a development council and a successor body. However, the matters to be addressed in a scheme of
146
reorganisation, and together with a scheme of reorganisation, are laid down in Clause 2 and Schedule 1 of the Bill. They do not include the functions to be assigned to a development council for the very good reason that it is not within the power of the boards themselves to set up a development council or to assign functions to it. These are matters to be dealt with in an order under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. Ministers would first need to be satisfied that the establishment of a development council was desired by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may ask the Minister how he would intend to find out that such support existed. Would he consider that a producer poll would help?
Earl Howe: I reserve judgment on that matter for the moment. I said at Second Reading that the Government was favourably disposed to the creation of a development council for the dairy industry provided that the conditions laid down in the 1947 Act were met. It would be for the industry itself to take the initiative and to provide the necessary finance. The timing would be up to them; but I believe it would be sensible for the industry to wait until the Agriculture Bill had received Royal Assent.
As to the functions that a development council might take on, it would be reasonable to envisage that it might continue the research and development work of the Milk Marketing Board. It might continue to publish booklets such as Dairy Facts and Figures and might undertake or contribute to promotional activity in whatever form. I believe it would also be possible for it to operate in co-operation with the Animal Data Centre. But those would be matters for the development council itself to decide under the terms of the 1947 Act.
Under the current plans of the England and Wales Board, it is proposed that GENUS Central Testing and National Milk Records should be transferred to its proposed successor co-operative. A number of organisations have suggested that they should be placed under independent ownership. Ministers will need to examine any reorganisation schemes submitted, including any provisions made in respects of those activities in line with the provisions of the Bill. The board has also indicated that the co-operative would make services such as GENUS and National Milk Records available on a commercial basis to non-members so that the whole industry would continue to be able to benefit from it.
I hope that in the light of my remarks the noble Lord will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. The purpose of the amendment was to get on record the general drift of the argument as to the kind of things that might be dealt with by a development council. If I hear the Minister correctly, he is saying that if after Royal Assent the industry were to get together to work on proposals for a milk development council the Government would not be minded to oppose it.

147
An interesting point is raised about the proposed successor co-operative providing commercial services to non-members on the same basis as those provided to its own members. It would be interesting to know whether services provided to its own members would be treated as part of its mutual trading and therefore any profit on those activities would not be subject to tax. I suspect that those provided to non-members would be regarded as non-member trade and therefore subject to tax. That is a point that the successor body will have to consider. Those of us who have been involved in co-operatives that have dealt with both members and non-members are very well aware of the distinction between member and non-member trade.
I shall read Hansard with care. I think the points that I wished to have covered have been covered, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Any scheme approved by the authority in accordance with this section shall be subject to approval by the affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 38. By an oversight on my part, we should also have included in our consideration Amendment No. 37. If your Lordships do not object, I shall refer also to that amendment because it deals with the same subject. I remind your Lordships that that is the catch-all amendment which provides, "No regulations under this Act shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament". This group of amendments deals with a point that is very well aware to the Committee: the regulation-making powers under the Bill. Your Lordships have long experience of examining such matters as Henry VIII clauses, and the need for affirmative and negative resolutions. The amendments deal with whether when a reorganisation scheme has been finally approved by government—I emphasise "finally"—it should be submitted to Parliament by way of affirmative resolution.
The point has been made that a number of detailed matters in the reorganisation scheme will be matters of commercial confidence. I entirely understand that. In the wording of an amendment if the principle were accepted, one could deal with that by saying that only the principles of a scheme—those matters that do not involve commercial confidentiality —should be included in an order that is brought back to Parliament. From an earlier debate on an amendment that I moved, it is probable that there will not be a producer poll. We have an enabling Bill which leaves it to the Government to work out with the marketing boards how they should determine their future. We welcome acceptance by the Minister about the nature of the consultation process, which we hope will be wide. But it seems that the Government see no further role for Parliament in consideration of these schemes once the Bill has passed into law. At Second Reading I referred to what I described as a cosy stitch-up
148
between the Government and the marketing boards. I know that the Minister thought I was coming on a bit strong, but I think he got the general drift of the argument.
At Second Reading, when I expressed the view that Parliament should decide on eventual schemes, the Minister said:
"The problem with that approach is that it is not simply a matter of a 'yes' or 'no' vote. As the procedures in the Bill show, the process of decision-taking is ongoing. Therefore, we need a provision to deal with change and a developing situation. There may well be modifications to the details of the scheme after it is first submitted".—[Official Report. 23/11/92; col. 859.]
I hope that if the consultation is as wide as we want it to be there will be modifications of the details of schemes after they are first submitted; but the whole emphasis here is on when the schemes have been finally agreed by government and are to come into force. That is the point at which Parliament should have the right to express a view. The Bill must be finally approved at some stage, presumably well before the vesting date, so that business can proceed.
I would ask why Parliament should not be allowed to examine schemes that fundamentally change 60 years of successful milk marketing. The changes have substantial implications for farmers, the dairy trade and consumers. In view of the way the Bill is drafted it seems there is no way that Parliament can be allowed to have another look at it and to say whether it approves of the schemes. I believe it is up to the Government to say why not. I do not believe that we have to put up an argument. The argument is a strong one, and it is for the Government to show why when schemes have been finally approved by the authority they should not come back to Parliament and, by way of affirmative resolution, Parliament should not have a chance to express its view.
As to why I propose an affirmative resolution, I refer to the First Report from the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation (Session 1972–73):
"this particularly rigorous scrutiny should be confined to affirmative instruments because they are the most important class of instrument and are in any case subject to more careful examination than other types".
That is why we should have the affirmative resolution procedure.
I think that there is a hint of a new approach to Henry VIII clauses throughout this Bill in the nature of an enabling Bill where everything has to come back by way of a negative resolution. As I said, Parliament lays down the criteria for the new scheme in the Bill—and we are trying to extend the criteria as we move through the Bill—but it seems that Parliament is then to be denied any examination of the Government's success in fulfilling those criteria. We have heard a lot about the new world of milk marketing. Perhaps Parliament should be allowed to express a view regarding the shape and the nature of the vessels which will be setting out on this new world of milk marketing.
On the wider argument about the resolutions in general, it seems to me that there cannot be just a blanket acceptance of negative resolutions. I believe that the provision we are discussing comes off all the word processors of parliamentary draftsmen in all

149
departments. It is a standard procedure that arises with every new Bill. I dare to say that departments try it on by saying everything should be done by negative resolution.
I ask the Minister to accept the principle of these amendments. Obviously I do not intend to divide the Committee at this stage. My intention is to promote debate. Will the Minister be prepared to attempt to specify properly in the Bill those matters which should be the subject of negative resolution—obviously there are some—and those which should be the subject of affirmative resolution? The matter which I believe should be the subject of affirmative resolution is the measure which gives this Chamber and another place the chance to see the final shape of the principles of the reorganisation schemes after the Government have approved them. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wish, with the permission of the Committee, to speak to Amendments Nos. 2I and 38, which are grouped with Amendment No. 14, and to Amendment No. 37 to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just spoken. The amendments which stand in my name and which I have discussed in particular with the Dairy Trade Federation would have a similar effect to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, except that I am proposing that not only initial schemes should be subject to parliamentary order but also subsequent variations to schemes. That last point is inserted as a way of exploring the Government's view—I believe this has not so far been discussed—on the significance for the public of the variations to schemes in the future.
I shall certainly not press my amendments this evening. Nevertheless I suggest to the Government that this group of amendments is important. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made many of the points that I would wish to make, but I think that some of my reasons for tabling these amendments are somewhat different from those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It seems to me that the Bill is tipped fairly heavily in favour of milk producers. In a way that is understandable. Hard working dairy farmers have for many years been so accustomed to the advantages for them of the operations of the Milk Marketing Board that they would be horrified if the ease of the system was suddenly removed in the name of ultimate market benefit. So voluntary schemes, foreshadowed as having many of the characteristics of the milk marketing boards are provided for in the Bill and the National Farmers' Union, on behalf of the farmers, welcomes that.
It was clear on Second Reading, and it has been clear this afternoon, that there are other points of view. For those who purchase and sell milk; those who manufacture and sell dairy products, and above all for the consumer, it is essential that any new scheme is not only convenient for farmers but is also fair to all concerned in the marketplace. If that is not so, at the end of the day people will not have the best possible choice of products and the most convenient availability of milk at the best possible price.
150
The Bill seeks only to establish the criteria to be met by a proposed successor scheme. It requires Ministers, as has been said this afternoon, to take a wide variety of interests into account before accepting a proposal and it requires them to fix the day when the present scheme ceases. In addition, my noble friend has given a very welcome undertaking today for extra consultation. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for that. But, so far as I can see, there is no requirement at all that a new scheme should be published or come in any way at all into the public domain. The Scottish National Farmers' Union tells me it considers that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my own would simply cause unnecessary delay. The union would regret that.
The Milk Marketing Board suggests that it is out of the question that proposals should be discussed by Parliament because they would be commercially sensitive. With so many interests at stake and with the direct effect on the shopping public and on local businesses so great, surely when Parliament is arranging for the scheme, Parliament should have the final say. Should that not also apply to variations to schemes as much as to their initial determination? I shall listen with particular interest to what my noble friend has to say on this group of amendments. I hope that his reply will include my proposal that variations to schemes should be included within the Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: In the case of every Bill that comes to this Chamber it appears that at some point Members ask for the affirmative resolution procedure. This Bill is no exception. The only exception as regards this Bill is that it is a wholly enabling Bill. On any page of the Bill one can read that the authority to which an application is made will not grant the application unless it is satisfied about certain matters. That appears on every page.
What we are doing here is giving the Government the authority to discuss a scheme with the Milk Marketing Board and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, to sew it up between them. However, we are not taking any authority to consider the scheme that is finally produced. That is a matter of extreme importance. I have never seen a Bill that is more enabling. Without any further ado, I believe that as regards a Bill of this kind it is absolutely essential that a scheme which has enormous importance to the whole country should be examined by Parliament. In this case I am certain that the affirmative resolution procedure should be adopted. I am delighted to be able to agree with my noble neighbour. For once she is talking great good sense. However, I do not quite agree with her as regards the bodies she considers will need to examine the measure. I think that there is a need for the farming population to examine it too. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There is, of course, a very clear distinction between Amendment No. 14 which the Committee is at the moment formally discussing and Amendment No. 21 to which my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour referred. Amendment No. 14 provides that all orders shall be made under the affirmative procedure whereas Amendment No. 21

151
refers to their being made by order by the Minister without any provision that the affirmative procedure shall apply.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. If he looks at Amendment No. 38, to which I was also speaking, he will see that it includes the affirmative resolution.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged. I was about to point out that there is a clash between Amendment No. 21 and Amendment No. 38 which as a matter of drafting is unfortunate, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate. But coming back as one must to the main Amendment No. 14, it is of course almost the conventional move of the Opposition nowadays whenever there is an order to try to provide that it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. There are two very substantial objections to that.
Lord Carter: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. The fact is that there is no provision in the Bill for the schemes to come back to Parliament. There is a two-level argument: first, whether the schemes should come back to Parliament for approval and, secondly, if they do, whether that should be under the affirmative or negative resolution procedure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Amendment No. 14 does not so provide, but one can provide for a ministerial order and for the negative procedure. We are not discussing that because it is not in the Bill; nor is it covered by the amendment. I am dealing with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, which would apply the affirmative procedure.
As I was saying when the noble Lord intervened helpfully, if one insists on a large number of affirmative Motions one will congest parliamentary business. One may well find that because of the sheer number they are not considered as closely as they might be. There is the further serious objection that if the necessity to make the order arises at the beginning of the long Recess there is a matter of some months before the order can be effected. That must be a considerable weakness in the proposal.
I agree that there may be some important and exceptional orders which are nonetheless worthwhile including under the affirmative procedure. However, a general proposal such as Amendment No. 14 prescribes would congest business. It would also hold up orders which arise during a Recess.
I hope, therefore, that if my noble friend the Minister is prepared to make some adjustment—there is certainly an argument for that—he will not go as far as is proposed in Amendment No. 14.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he could deal with one point. Is he aware that Clause 53(5) states that every statutory instrument under the Bill shall be negative? Is he happy with the situation that in a Bill of this nature the Government should have a catch-all provision that all regulations shall be subject to the negative resolution procedure rather than to the affirmative resolution procedure?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have a higher regard than the noble Lord for the negative resolution procedure. It is always possible for any noble Lord or Member of another place to put down a Prayer and secure that any particular order is debated. That is a convenient procedure because it means that one only debates those particular orders which seem, to at least one noble Lord or one honourable Member, to be of real importance. On the other hand the proposal set out in Amendment No. 14 that the affirmative procedure should be automatic in all cases means that we would have to take those orders even if no noble Lord or honourable Member considered them worth debating.
I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for helping me to clarify the position. I think that he understands it.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: Although this is an enabling Bill it is clear what it enables. It seeks to replace the statutory Milk Marketing Board scheme with a free market scheme. How that reorganisation takes place is a matter for consideration and for proposals put forward by the industry. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for us to be involved in discussions as to how that scheme will work.
Further, there are five milk marketing boards and no doubt five schemes will be proposed to the Government. I do not believe that Members of this House would want to discuss in detail the reorganisation of five milk marketing boards. I believe that the amendment is not appropriate.
Lord Monk Bretton: I am opposed to the amendment for a practical reason. The same situation arose in connection with Amendment No. 4. The delay which would result from the affirmative resolution procedure, which has already been mentioned, has a serious practical disadvantage. Until that procedure had been completed the co-operatives would be unable to secure market share.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The only delay which has been mentioned so far is the delay that would occur if that happened during the long Recess and the matter could not be dealt with. Surely the Government could organise their business better than that?
Lord Monk Bretton: I was not trying to defend my noble friend on the Front Bench, although I have sympathy with him. I was thinking of milk producers. They want to see the co-operative have a good chance of securing market share pari passu with the big dairies which will probably also be canvassing for market share. It is that aspect which concerns me. I believe that the co-operatives would be held back until the affirmative procedure had been gone through whereas the other organisations would be galloping ahead.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: The amendment, and the amendments which are grouped with it in the name of my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, would require a scheme

153
or reorganisation submitted by a board, once approved by Ministers, to be approved also by an affirmative resolution of both Houses.
I fully appreciate the wish of the Committee that Parliament should exercise vigilance over the details of successor marketing arrangements. The Government for their part have no wish to act in secrecy. I have already undertaken that the main elements of a reorganisation scheme should be fully in the public domain and subject to appropriate consultation before approval is given.
The Bill is deliberately drafted so as to expose to the maximum practicable extent the matters to which Ministers should have regard in deciding whether to approve a reorganisation scheme. It is right and proper that your Lordships should debate the principles at issue, as we are now doing, and that they should also be debated in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that this was an enabling Bill, as though it were writing Ministers a blank cheque. That hardly stands the test of scrutiny, not least if one refers to the provisions contained in Clause 3.
When I looked at this amendment I wondered whether it was something that the Government could consider accepting. However, when I thought about it more deeply, I realised that there would be some real difficulties with it. My initial difficulty is with the proposition that once the extensive procedure provided for in the Bill, leading up to ministerial approval, has run its full course there should be a further hurdle for a scheme to jump. First, let us ask ourselves whether a board would not be in an impossible position if, having submitted its proposals in accordance with the Bill as enacted, and having received confirmation that its proposals were acceptable in accordance with that enactment, it was nevertheless faced with their rejection. Would the board be expected, if I may use the expression, to return to the drawing board? Regardless of the question whether there would still be time to formulate new proposals from scratch, consult producers and so on, and that is open to doubt, the fundamental question arises—on what basis of hope or expectation could a board found its plans? Parliament, having passed a Bill laying down the terms of reference in some detail, would effectively have negated its own provisions. We would be in a blind alley. It would be more honest to reject the Bill in its entirety than to go down that path. At the very least the Bill would need to be withdrawn and substantially rewritten.
There is also the significant point for which I tried to find words at Second Reading; namely, that the process of decision-making, as prescribed in the Bill, is more a process of iteration than something which occurs at a single moment of time. The provisions for variation, withdrawal and resubmission are there not because of a remote possibility of them being needed but because there is a very real chance. The need arises partly because of the time which will elapse between submission of a scheme and its implementation. The world does not stand still. If a scheme has to be withdrawn and resubmitted in a different form to
154
reflect a material change of circumstances, are we prepared to reconvene in the middle of a possibly lengthy Recess to remove an unexpected obstacle to progress?
If we are to take upon ourselves the responsibilities of an executive, we must be prepared to act accordingly. Therefore I do not believe this is practicable. I believe that the additional delays which would inevitably result from acceptance of the amendment, and the amendments of my noble friend, would be fatal to the whole process.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said in answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that Clause 53(5) specifies that all regulations shall be under the negative procedure. I should like to clarify that point. He is not quite correct. Clause 53(5) refers to statutory instruments "containing regulations". Any statutory instrument containing regulations made under the Bill is to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Power to make regulations is included in Clauses 13, 34 and 44.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked why there is a provision to vary a scheme after approval. A scheme will contain a mass of technical detail relating to a board's assets, liabilities, and so on. Circumstances, as I have said, may change. Items may need to be added or deleted from a list.
A more substantial variation may be necessary, for example, if it were not possible to undertake a flotation on the given date. So there could be multiple variations. But a major change would probably necessitate withdrawal and submission of a new scheme.
So what may seem a straightforward matter of principle is in fact a very substantial thrust at the heart of this part of the Bill. There would be very severe practical objections, even if I felt, which I do not happen to feel, that the affirmative resolution was appropriate. It would, I believe, put paid to realistic hopes of achieving satisfactory successor arrangements to the present milk marketing schemes on terms that were favourable to the majority of producers and acceptable to government. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, agrees and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Is the Minister prepared to consider that the Milk Marketing Board and others might prefer, when dealing with a Minister, to know that the scheme was going back before Parliament and that that might ease the path? Ministers normally, and governments always, think that they are right and that Parliament is some sort of nuisance. I do not believe, however, that it is a generally held view in the country.
Earl Howe: I doubt very much whether they would feel that, in the light of the remarks I made earlier. The possibility that Parliament might reject what they and Ministers had considered acceptable within the terms of the framework of the Bill would present them with very severe difficulties. I doubt that they would wish to go along that path.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend did not refer to the proposal in my amendment that variations

155
should also be included. I take it that what he said would apply to subsequent variations to the scheme as well.
Earl Howe: I believe that the need for affirmative resolutions would build substantial delays into the approval system, which, as I said, would probably be fatal. By extension, it would be even worse if all variations had to be similarly approved by Parliament, as my noble friend proposes.
Lord Carter: This is a very familiar debate to your Lordships. Most Ministers who come to the Dispatch Box take much the same view. One begins to wonder what Parliament is for when one hears the replies from Ministers as to why they need to get ahead, why there must not be delay, why in fact they cannot be consulted. As I say, we have to lay down the criteria but we are not allowed, either in this place or another place, to see whether the Government and the boards have fulfilled the criteria that we laid down. The Minister protested too much. Most Ministers do when responding to this kind of amendment.
I tried to deal with the point about commercial confidence. After all, the principles will have to be announced to producers if they are to sign up. So why on earth, if producers have to know about the principles of the scheme, should Parliament not be allowed to pronounce upon them? As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, it is an enabling Bill all the way through. It enables the Government to get together with the marketing boards, and that is the end of it so far as Parliament is concerned.
I find the business of delay hard to follow. When we conclude the debate we shall consider the Child Support Fees Regulations. They were drafted and laid before Parliament on 29th October. They turned out to be wrong and had to be redrafted and relaid. No doubt they will receive the approval of this House this evening, having already received the approval of the other House. A whole five weeks have therefore elapsed in dealing with the Child Support Fees Regulations.
If the problem of affirmative resolution is as great as the noble Earl says, I could perhaps he persuaded that there is a case for the negative resolution procedure. Perhaps the scheme should be laid, and if anyone wants to pray against it and draw the attention of either House to any weakness, that should be possible. I am concerned about the principle. It happens all the time with regulations and statutory instruments. They come into force very quickly. They are drafted, laid, and often debated in the other place on one day and here the next day. So the argument of delay does not stand up for one moment. I am not convinced about what the Minister said. Obviously I shall read Hansard. I intend to withdraw the amendment but we shall probably have to come back to the matter in rather more detail. Perhaps we shall even have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to help us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
156
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monk Bretton: There is one point I should like to raise at this stage. At Second Reading I mentioned the possibility that the new co-operative might be permitted a holding in Dairy Crest. The disposal of Dairy Crest is in effect the break-up of what I have come to regard as a major producer's co-operative asset in the United Kingdom. It is a decision of very considerable moment. Because of that I wondered whether I might ask my noble friend to comment on government intentions with regard to permitting the Milk Marketing Board to hold a minority interest of some kind in Dairy Crest, and not a majority interest.
There are fears all round at the moment. The producers fear that the co-operative will be too weak—I am one of those. The dairy trade fears that it might be too strong and probably does not want it any stronger. But there is one overall concern that governs my thinking. That is that once the assets that were built up by the England and Wales board have gone, I believe they would be very difficult to reassemble again in case of need. It is for that reason that I raise the subject. I wonder just how strong in the matter of assets the new co-operative will be permitted to be.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I understood that the Milk Marketing Board, in agreeing to the sale of Dairy Crest, was saying that it would be floated off in such a way that the milk producers would become—or at least would have the opportunity to become—shareholders of the proposed company. So the proposal of my noble friend that the Milk Marketing Board should remain itself a shareholder in my view would not seem appropriate. We should be looking at a revised board that would be solely a milk trader, buying milk from producers and selling it to the trade. In my view, it would not be appropriate for it also to be a shareholder. However, there is certainly every opportunity for milk producers to be shareholders of a floated Dairy Crest.
Earl Howe: I must be careful in what I say at the Dispatch Box not to anticipate the proposals which eventually come forward from the boards on the disposition of their assets. We are talking hypothetically here about what may or may not happen to Dairy Crest. I wish to ask my noble friend to be patient until we discuss Amendment No. 17 tabled by my noble friend Lord Wade which addresses the issue. If he is content to do that, I shall have a number of points to make when we debate that amendment, and no doubt he can elaborate on his views at that time.
Lord Monk Bretton: I thank my noble friend.
Clause 3 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Qualifying scheme of reorganization]:
[Amendment No. 16 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Wade of Chorlton Lord Wade of Chorlton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 28, line 16, at end insert:

157
("( ) Where the scheme of reorganisation provides for the commercial activities of a milk marketing board to be separated then this must be completed before the vesting day.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of putting down this amendment is to have an opportunity to discuss the timing of vesting day, the implementation of the Bill and the revised reorganisation of the board. It would be bad if there were doubt in people's minds as to when the scheme would come into operation. In the Bill we have already allowed an extra period of six months for the milk marketing boards in England and Wales as against the other milk marketing boards. No doubt that will enable the marketing arrangements of some of their existing assets to be dealt with appropriately.
Even so, we all know that the timing of floating companies, trying to raise money at the right moment, dealing with the market and with the potential opportunity of 30,000 farmers becoming shareholders in the assets, could be difficult. It may well be that it would not be appropriate to wait until that was completed, if we went through all the circumstances.
I should therefore like an assurance from the Minister that the Government intend to do everything in their power to ensure that the reorganisations are completed by October 1994. If it is not possible to do what we wish, then other arrangements might have to be made to make sure that the date is complied with. Otherwise, we may find ourselves at the end of 1994 in a situation where it is an extra six months and then another six months after that. I know that it could go to 1996 but that would be the worst thing that could happen to the industry. That is particularly so if the other milk marketing boards go ahead with their reorganisation schemes and are operating in a free market. Once they do that, they do not have to keep to their own geographical area and, in my view, it opens up what could be tricky situations. That is the purpose of my amendment. I seek assurances from the Government on how they intend to ensure that the reorganisation takes place by October 1994. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I had intended to table amendments relating to Dairy Crest in order to elicit the argument on which my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton touched and some of the points which my noble friend Lord Wade made. However, I came to the conclusion after discussing the amendment with one or two of my noble friends that perhaps the amendments were flawed so I withdrew them from the Marshalled List.
However, it is important that the Committee should be quite clear exactly what will happen about Dairy Crest and at what point. It is a major change for everyone concerned, particularly consumers. If my noble friend is able to clarify the point in his reply on this amendment, it might mean that I need not put down an amendment on Report which I should otherwise do.
Lord Carter: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is helpful because it enables us to explore
158
a problem which he highlighted. There is anxiety and confusion over what might happen because of the variation of dates in the Bill.
The argument is made that on the flotation of Dairy Crest (which we all welcome) the share capital will be allocated to producers on a formula. But the whole object and the whole reason for floating it is because it needs further equity capital. It is difficult for the Minister because we are referring to the possible flotation of a public company. But in seeking further equity capital, will the successor body and cooperatives which can invest in public limited companies—I believe there is no restriction on them doing so—be restricted? Does the Minister foresee that there will be any restriction on the successor bodies? When the son of Dairy Crest seeks further equity capital in the market, could the successor bodies subscribe? Is that feasible?
On the other hand, suppose the companies cannot be floated. Suppose the market conditions are such that this tends to crowd out investment in the stock market. This occurs, particularly when the Government have a public sector borrowing requirement of over £40 billion, in real terms I believe £52 billion. Suppose we reach a point where, for technical reasons, the Dairy Crest company cannot be floated. What happens then? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has raised a helpful point.
Earl Howe: One of the principles behind the Bill is that it should be for each milk marketing board to decide whether to submit formal proposals for Ministers' approval. The circumstances of each board are different. It would therefore be inconsistent with this principle to prejudge in the Bill what any board might or might not propose.
However, the amendment appears to address two possibilities. The first is that a board which intended to separate its commercial activities might propose in its reorganisation scheme that the residuary board should retain ownership after vesting with a view to a subsequent disposal. Our clear intention is that a board should continue after the vesting day only to carry out residual activities relating to the winding up of activities arising from its former milk marketing scheme. It would not be a trading body. Indeed, paragraph 15(3) of Schedule 1 specifically provides that a residuary board could not buy or sell milk.
There is also the possibility that a board might provide in a reorganisation scheme for the transfer of its commercial activities to a successor body with the express purpose of subsequent separation. Only one board has so far proposed separating its commercial activities. This is the England and Wales board in respect of Dairy Crest. Separation (by vesting day at the latest) is not in doubt under the proposal. Let me make that clear. The timing of a flotation is a different matter and cannot be tied down to a specific day 18 months in advance. The company concerned will naturally wish to time matters to make the flotation as successful as possible. I can therefore understand if some noble Lords might wonder whether the proposed flotation of Dairy Crest might be delayed beyond vesting day by factors outside a board's control.

159
Our position on this point is also clear. An approved reorganisation scheme must be completed on the vesting day. The Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales is not intending that its successor co-operative should assume ownership of Dairy Crest even if flotation was delayed beyond vesting day. I understand that the board is making contingency plans for this eventuality which would still involve separation from any proposed successor body. It does not envisage its proposed successor co-operative assuming ownership of Dairy Crest for even a limited period.
Although I am sure my noble friend tabled this amendment with a probing intention, I have to say that the amendment is also unduly restrictive. It would require any separation proposed in an approved reorganisation scheme to take place before the vesting day specified in it rather than on or before. The vesting day would be the day on which transfers of property, rights and liabilities of a board would be given automatic effect under the provisions of Clause 10. I hope that my noble friend will accept that there is no reason why a board should not propose that the separation of any of its activities should take place on the vesting day.
I hope that I have assured the Committee that the amendment is both unnecessary and too restrictive and, therefore, that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Carter: I understand that the boards do not propose that the successor bodies should attempt to control Dairy Crest but if Dairy Crest goes to the market in order to raise further capital equity—and that is the reason given for needing to float the company on the stock market—do the Government envisage that a year or two after the company has been floated, when it is looking for further investment, that the successor co-operatives will be able to invest their members' money, if the members so desire it, in Dairy Crest?
Earl Howe: That is a matter to which I must give some thought but if a successor co-operative were so minded to subscribe in Dairy Crest, the competition implications would be uppermost in mind and the Director General of Fair Trading might well take a view on that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is my noble friend saying that if the scheme put forward for England and Wales includes the separation of Dairy Crest on or before vesting day that can be accepted, but it is not necessary that the scheme should provide for its flotation subsequently?
Earl Howe: No, I was not saying that it was not necessary to provide for its flotation subsequently. We see that as a very desirable aim. I am saying that if separation of Dairy Crest were part of the scheme proposed by the England and Wales board, we should insist that separation take place on or before vesting day.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is my noble friend saying that if that separation is not included, the scheme will not be accepted?
Earl Howe: We know that the European Commission would not accept a scheme along those lines. Ministers will have to take very serious account of that position.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I should like further clarification. Provided that Dairy Crest is separated from the Milk Marketing Board, in the event that it is not possible to carry out a flotation on vesting day—for example, October 19, 1994, which is the date for which we should aim—because it has not been possible to raise the finance, for whatever reason, and more time is needed, can the re-organised board start from October 1994?
Earl Howe: Yes, my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton has summarised the position well. Provided that the separation takes place before October 1994 then, so to speak, we are in business.
Lord Carter: In that situation where it has not been possible to float Dairy Crest but it has been separated off, who will own Dairy Crest?
Earl Howe: The producers would own Dairy Crest. It would simply be a non-publicly quoted company.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for making that situation much clearer to the Committee. I shall read what he said with interest. It may be necessary to clarify the issue further on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 19 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Conditional contracts
. Between the day that this Act comes into force and the vesting day under an approved scheme, purchasers of milk may enter into conditional contracts with producers of milk, such contracts to be effective on vesting day.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks clarification as to what can happen between Royal Assent and vesting day as regards contracts for the purchase and sale of milk. As I understand the position at present, as a milk purchaser I can enter into a conditional contract with a dairy company — not the MMB—which says that if certain events take place and the milk marketing scheme is revoked so that I can sell my milk anywhere, I can enter into a contract with that company. That dairy company actually exists at present and I can enter into a conditional contract with it. I cannot do that with the MMB itself because its power to buy my milk will end

161
with the milk marketing scheme and the residuary boards will not be able to trade. Therefore, I cannot enter into a contract with any body.
When the successor co-operatives are formed and have received final approval from the Minister—and we may or may not have a chance to comment upon that in Parliament—and once the re-organisation scheme is approved, that co-operative can then enter into conditional contracts. I imagine that all the successor bodies will need some form of forecasting of contracts to allow them to trade from day one. They will need to know how much milk they have to sell, how they are to buy it, and so on. What are the rights of the producers, successor bodies and private dairy companies as regards entering into additional contracts which allow the trading to start on vesting day so that everybody knows that supplies of milk are secured?
On a different but related point, I believe that the Minister has said already on an earlier amendment, that existing contracts between producers and the boards will fall automatically on vesting day and that no contracts will be allowed to roll over to the successor bodies. If so, it is even more important that we should know what will happen to conditional contracts and whether they will be able to set up their trading arrangements in advance of trading which would start on vesting day.
My third point is also related, and I touched on this matter on an earlier amendment. Anxiety has been expressed, particularly in Scotland, as regards the looseness of dates in the Bill: for example, it is April 1994 or earlier for the Scottish boards; and it is October 1994 or earlier for England and Wales; or it can be delayed until January 1996. I understand the reasons for that, but the view has been expressed that the Scottish scheme could be dissolved a year or more before the English scheme, and that could lead to problems with cross-Border trade.
This amendment is intended to be helpful and to clarify that area where anxiety has been expressed about the power to trade on conditional terms between Royal Assent and vesting day. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support the amendment because the Milk Marketing Board, or its successor body, is likely to be put at a commercial disadvantage during the period running up to vesting day. The other dairy processors will be able to sign up as many farmers as they can. Suddenly at midnight, or one minute past midnight, the Milk Marketing Board has no idea, at least technically, as to what is the position, although I trust that it would be possible to arrive at some sort of arrangement.
We were discussing competition. I believe that the provision places the milk marketing boards or the successors thereof at a disadvantage. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: When I spoke at Second Reading, I mentioned that Wiseman Dairies in Scotland were already circulating draft documents to certain farmers to entice them to sign up with Wiseman Dairies. I believe that that illustrates the problem which could occur for the successor body to
162
the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, and indeed all the milk marketing boards, if they were not freed before vesting day to send to producers offers and contracts on their behalf. I am sure that the Government do not intend—it would be ludicrous —that the successor bodies should wait until after vesting day before they are able to negotiate contracts. As both previous speakers mentioned, that would place successor bodies at a huge disadvantage in respect of their competitors. I hope that my noble friend can say something which will help us in that regard.
Earl Howe: Although I realise that the amendment is exploratory, it is one which reflects the failure to stop thinking in terms of a regulated market. A milk marketing scheme governs the sale of milk while the scheme exists. It does not prevent producers from making arrangements to sell their milk after it ends. Producers are free to enter into contracts today to supply milk to whomever they wish after their milk marketing scheme ends, provided that they abide by the rules of the scheme until then.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I can interrupt the Minister. Should I wish to contract with the successor body today, how can I do it? It does not exist.
Earl Howe: The contract is conditional upon the successor body coming into existence and upon events moving as people anticipate. It is not necessary explicitly to empower producers to enter into contracts to supply milk after revocation of their milk marketing scheme. In that sense the amendment is superfluous. Furthermore, establishing a period during which producers could enter into new contracts may even restrict producers' freedom to prepare for the introduction of the new arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether contracts with the boards would cease on vesting day. I believe that I addressed that problem earlier and answered that there will be a clear break. He mentioned also the question of dates and whether there may be complications if the Scottish scheme came first. I do not foresee any specific problems arising from different dates of revocation of the schemes. But should Scotland be liberated first, English producers will not be able to sell to the Scottish co-operatives until they too are liberated.
I hope that I have covered the points sufficiently and that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may raise one point with the Minister. Obviously the milk marketing boards in Scotland and elsewhere will be attempting to tie producers to the new scheme. Will that contract or letter of intent be legally binding?
Earl Howe: The force of a conditional contract is not something that I am best placed to comment upon. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: Before the noble Lord continues, I may be wrong and the noble Lord opposite may be able to help me, but I understood that under the scheme, if any member of the Milk

163
Marketing Board—while the board and the scheme are operational—did something which placed a cost on the board but which it was not legitimate for it to bear in the interests of its then members, anybody could claim that a default had taken place and that the money had been used incorrectly.
In my noble friend's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, he said that there would be nothing to stop a successor body entering into contracts. But who is it that can do that? The only person who can do that is somebody already employed by the existing Milk Marketing Board. Nobody else would be there. It occurs to me that it may well be that if such a person were incurring costs which were not legitimate for the Milk Marketing Board to carry out, he could be liable.
I should be grateful for that point to be considered more closely. It may be that the Government are expecting the present Milk Marketing Board to do something which under its scheme it cannot do, because there is nothing that covers it, and which the Bill changes the law to enable it to do.
Earl Howe: My noble friend's question is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position. The milk marketing schemes prevent producers from selling milk other than in accordance with their terms while the schemes exist. They do not prevent producers from entering into contracts to sell milk to other buyers—processors or whoever—which are conditional upon the milk marketing schemes being revoked. As I said, producers may enter into such contracts now. There is nothing in the present law to prevent the achievement of the purpose of that part of the amendment.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: I apologise to my noble friend. I obviously did not make clear my point. I am concerned with the question of how the successor body to the Milk Marketing Board can make contracts with potential suppliers from 1st October 1994. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the point of who the suppliers negotiate with.
I understand the point made by my noble friend that as a producer I can enter into a contract with Northern Foods. That is understood. Northern Foods exists and is there to make a contract with me. But who do I enter into a contract with if I wish to enter into a contract with the successor body? It is my belief that the present scheme prevents anybody employed by the existing milk marketing boards from acting in that capacity. That is the problem.
Earl Howe: I did not address my noble friend's question properly. I apologise to him. Clearly, one cannot have a contract between parties who do not exist. A successor body can be set up in advance of the approval of a reorganisation scheme. At that point it would be possible for conditional contracts to be entered into.
Lord Carter: This was a probing amendment. I did not think it would cause so much trouble. I believe that the Minister answered the point. I shall need to
164
read Hansard and if necessary come back, or perhaps it is something we can discuss between Committee Stage and Report to make sure that it is clear.
Before withdrawing the amendment perhaps I can say that with all this talk of the new world, liberation, North of the Border and South of the Border, perhaps we should change vesting day to independence day. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions relating to carrying out of approved scheme of reorganization]:
[Amendment No 24 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Levies]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 28, leave out from ("who") to end of line 29 and insert ("are registered producers on vesting day.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 25 seeks clarification and I hope that we can deal with it quicker than the last amendment. I am not clear what subsection (4) means. Perhaps I am misreading the Bill, but when one looks under Clause 16, which deals with levies, in subsection (4) it states,
"the reference to eligible producers is to the persons who, under the approved scheme, are entitled to participate in the distribution of assets of the board to registered producers".
That concerns the residual boards going out to raise levies because the liabilities exceed the assets. Under the approved scheme, if all the remaining assets of the milk boards except those of Dairy Crest have gone to the members of the new co-operative, does it mean that should there be a need to raise a levy it will only be raised from the members of the new co-operative and not from all registered producers? After all, they should be responsible for the liabilities which arose before vesting day.
I hope that the Minister appreciates the point. I am not clear what subsection (4) means. I have been asked who the producers are who will have to pay the levies should they be raised. Will it be only the members of the successor bodies or will it be all producers who were in milk production? To be helpful I have added,
"are registered producers on vesting day".
In other words, all milk producers on vesting day have a share of the liabilities. Are they all to be levied or is it only the members of the successor bodies? I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: Without unduly detaining the Committee, perhaps I may start by explaining the purpose of Clause 16. It is intended as a fallback; a longstop which I hope will never be used. To begin with, it only applies to the extent that a board's reorganisation scheme has provided that liabilities, and the assets to meet them, should be vested in the residuary board. For that purpose the board should, so far as possible, ensure that a residuary board has sufficient assets to meet retained liabilities. As noble Lords will recall, Clause 3(4)(d) requires Ministers, in determining whether a reorganisation scheme ought

165
to be approved, to have regard to the chances of the board concerned being unlikely to be able to meet the liabilities which it proposes to retain out of retained assets.
It is possible that between approval of the scheme and vesting day there could be a significant change in prospects or circumstances. Clause 9 therefore contains a further provision requiring Ministers to be satisfied that it does not become expedient for the provision made in the scheme for meeting the retained liabilities of the board concerned to be increased.
These two provisions seek to ensure that the residuary board will be able to meet its retained liabilities. However, despite all these precautions, it is just possible that a residuary board will be unable to meet its liabilities. Clause 16 provides for that eventuality. It would empower, but not oblige, Ministers to make an order enabling the board to require eligible producers to contribute towards the meeting of its liabilities. Before making such an order, Ministers would have to be satisfied that the strict criteria in the clause were met.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked: who specifically would pay the levy? All registered producers who benefited from the distribution of assets, including for example, Dairy Crest if that is part of the scheme, would be liable. There is no question of limiting the levy to the members of a successor co-operative or other successor body.
This amendment addresses the question of who should be required to contribute if a levy has to be raised. It is the Government's view that, in the unlikely event that a levy has to be raised from producers, it is only fair that it should be collected from those who benefited from the distribution of assets in the reorganisation scheme. We have not, however, imposed on the boards a formula for the distribution of their assets. That is for the board concerned to decide.
The reference in Clause 16(4) to persons who,
"are entitled to participate in the distribution of assets of the board to registered producers"
clearly identifies those who were entitled to receive assets as being required to contribute to any levy. That may well not be identical to the group of people who are registered producers on vesting day. Adoption of this amendment—I do not believe that the noble Lord intends to press it—could therefore lead to some people who were not entitled to receive assets being required to contribute to a levy, while some who benefited would escape. That would be manifestly unfair. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: If there are eligible producers on vesting day in Scotland who have contracted to sell their milk afterwards to Mr. Wiseman, would they be liable to pay the levy if more money were needed?
Earl Howe: As I said earlier, it would apply to all registered producers who benefited from the distribution of assets. That would define the group.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. I thought that that was the intention, but it was worth having it on the record and making it clear. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 25A:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Distribution of excess assets
.—(1) This section applies where assets retained by a board exceed its liabilities.
(2) The excess of assets over liabilities shall be distributed to registered producers in proportion to their production of milk in the year preceding vesting day.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is to deal with the situation which is the reverse of that dealt with in the previous amendment. It is where we find that the assets retained by the board exceed its liabilities and there is a surplus. It is simply to find out what should happen to that surplus. I have suggested that it should,
"be distributed to registered producers in proportion to their production of milk in the year preceding vesting day."
The Committee will appreciate that this is a probing amendment. The Bill is clear as to what happens if the liabilities exceed the assets. The amendment is intended to discover what will happen if the assets exceed the liabilities. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As the Bill now stands, Paragraph 10(l) of Schedule 1 would require a milk marketing board which wished to retain any property or rights after its intended vesting day to specify in its reorganisation scheme who was entitled to share in any surplus assets of the residuary board remaining on the winding up of its affairs. Paragraph 10(2) of the same schedule limits recipients of any such surplus assets to present and former milk producers.
The Bill therefore leaves it to a board to propose how any surplus assets remaining on the winding up of its affairs should be distributed. It does not lay down any specific requirements in relation to this point other than to limit eligible recipients to present and former producers and to require Ministers to have particular regard, when deciding whether to approve a reorganisation scheme, to whether the scheme makes reasonable provision for the distribution of assets to producers.
I can see that there may be a case for including some form of specific provision further defining those who would be entitled to a share in any surplus assets of a residuary hoard. However, it would be inconsistent with the rest of the Bill to specify this in the terms of the amendment.
One approach might be to make the class of those entitled to a share in such assets the same as the class which would be liable to contribute to any levy that might be raised under Clause 16. In that way there would be as little disparity as possible between those entitled to share in any surplus assets and those liable to meet any shortfall in assets of a board after vesting.
I should like to consider this point further. If the noble Lord agrees to withdraw the amendment, I shall undertake to see whether the question of specifying further who would be entitled to a share in any surplus

167
assets of a board on its winding up could helpfully be dealt with in the Bill. If a suitable way can be found I shall table an amendment at Report stage.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the Minister consider a further complication? He spoke about former milk producers. Any such milk producer who has gone out of business has sold his quota at a price equal to the value of the cows in many cases. That kind of thing needs to be looked at if any form of equity is the result.
Earl Howe: The noble Lord makes an interesting point. Paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 1 is intended to allow for the possibility of former as well as present milk producers to be included in the scheme for the distribution of assets. In the end it is up to the boards to decide.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. He has taken the point that this matter needs clarification. I understand that he will at least consider the tabling of an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
Viscount Goschen: This may be a convenient moment to break off these proceedings. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Child Support Fees Regulations 1992
7.39 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 11th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House will know, from next April the Child Support Agency will acquire the responsibility for the assessment and collection of child maintenance. The regulations before the House today contain the provisions for the charging of fees for the services the agency will provide. The regulations contain provisions dealing with who will pay fees, and who will be exempt. They also cover the services for which fees will be charged.
The House will be aware that under the present system, many parties seek to involve solicitors in determining maintenance, and the matter often goes to court. The costs of all of this can be considerable.
Although the method of assessment will change when the agency takes over, there will still be a considerable amount of work to do. We believe that it is right that parents should make a contribution to the costs of all of this activity, if they are able to do so, rather than expecting the entire cost to fall on the taxpayer.
The agency will charge fees for two services. The charges will be made on an annual basis. The first fee of £44 will be for the assessment of maintenance and any reviews of the maintenance liability that may take place within the year. The second fee of £34, which is optional in voluntary applications under Sections 4 or 7 of the Act, is charged where my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is arranging for the collection of maintenance.
Turning to who will pay fees, there are two points which I would like to make. The first point is that we believe that it is not right to expect taxpayers to pay for the full cost of determining how much maintenance an absent parent should pay. Many taxpayers have children of their own, so, as I said earlier, when parents are able to make a contribution, then they should do so. Equally, however, we accept that it would not be appropriate to charge a fee in every case.
These regulations, therefore, contain provision detailing those clients who are exempt from fees. The exemptions have been drawn quite widely to ensure that the least well off should not be required to pay a fee. I should also point out that we have also ensured that liability to pay a fee depends on the individual's own circumstances and not those of the other party to the assessment. In addition, if a client is exempt from a fee at the time it becomes payable, the exemption will last for a year. We estimate that over 50 per cent. of the agency's clients will be exempt from fees, although as people move from the courts to the agency the numbers likely to pay fees may well increase.
Finally, I should like to stress that fees will not take priority over the collection and payment of maintenance. Maintenance for children must have priority over the payment of fees. These regulations strike the right balance between the taxpayer and parents who can or cannot pay fees. They give parents scope to decide what services they require. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on llth November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side of the House accept that absent parents should contribute to the support of their children, but the tone of these regulations (and of some of the previous regulations associated with the Act) seems to suggest that the purpose of the Act is to make irresponsible young women and even more irresponsible young men live up to their social responsibility for the woman having casually and self-indulgently become pregnant. Not so, most single-parent families were once two-parent families and, in a significant number of cases, the absent father is now in a second family.
We want to register a real concern about the level of fees in the regulations. We originally expected that they would be about £20 or £25 in total (between both parents) but under the regulations we are talking about £44 for assessment and £34 for collection each year for each parent—or about £150 a year in addition to maintenance. That is much higher than was originally proposed. The Minister has already quoted the comments of Mr. Burt who admitted in the House

169
of Commons that the fees were higher than necessary merely to cover the administrative costs of the new agency. Under questioning, Mr. Burt admitted that included in the fees were overhead costs such as the depreciation of capital assets. That suggests that the fees are inflated by the fact that they are being asked to serve a commercial and not merely an administrative purpose. We are talking about taking fees from some of the poorest families in the land. Therefore, when he replies, will the Minister spell out exactly what costs go into the fees?
The Minister will expect me to register some wider concerns also. Obviously, we welcome the range of exemptions from the fees, but I must ask why full-time students in higher education are not exempt, especially since their grants are desperately inadequate; they are not eligible for benefit; and their disposable income for living costs is lower than the income support level. We should also like to know to what extent the fees are high on the assumption that they are recovering maintenance payments for the carer as well as for the children.
Beyond that, wider anxieties remain about the maintenance proposals laid down in the Act. Even those on the lowest incomes are expected to contribute some 5 per cent. in maintenance—or about £2.30 per week. Given that, according to a Written Answer yesterday, as of 3rd December 637,000 families were top-sliced for the social fund; 305,000 families were top-sliced for fuel and 337,000 families were top-sliced for the poll tax, one in five families on income support are already receiving a net income which is well below income support levels. Will the Minister reconfirm that the absent parent will contribute to maintenance if he is on income support only if he is living alone or in a childless couple? Clearly, otherwise there is a major problem for the family.
Will the Minister also confirm that the caring parent who is failing to disclose the name of the absent father, or of the absent parent, will continue to suffer a benefit penalty of at least 20 per cent. for 26 weeks —that is, some £8 per week which in total, with all the top-slicing, could halve that parent's income support level? Could we have guarantees from the Minister that guidelines have been issued to DSS staff about the issue of exerting pressure or coercion on the mother to name the absent father? All the evidence suggests that currently one-third of single parents are saying that they will refuse to give the name of the absent father because they fear violence and further contact. What guidance will be offered to DSS staff as to what constitutes a reasonable refusal? Will we find that not only is the absent father being top-sliced, but that the mother, by refusing to disclose the father's name, will find herself unreasonably top-sliced as a benefit penalty, thus lowering the living standards of her children even further?
Will the Minister also comment on the issue of privacy? When paternity cases come to court not unnaturally many absent fathers deny that the child has anything to do with them. Many of us are worried about some of the questions in the questionnaire which ask the mother to give, for example, the time and place when the child could have been conceived.
170
One wonders about things such as lay-bys on the M4. The questions also include, "Was the man a childhood friend?" and "By whom was he introduced?" Such questions make mothers increasingly reluctant to give information, especially if there is to be a contested dispute over paternity which may come to court and which may result in a serious invasion of her privacy. We are anxious about questions of privacy as well as of finance.
I have a further question for the Minister. Why are the Government not giving single parents on income support the same £15 disregard as those on family credit? Behind this is the wider question that was fully aired in our debate on the Bill: why should there be no financial gain to the family but only to the Treasury as a result of the serving of the maintenance orders and the associated fees? After all, three-quarters of families on income support will not gain from the regulations. Indeed, if maintenance payments float them off income support (as they almost certainly will for 50,000 families) they will lose passported benefits, such as school meals, and be worse off. Those on family credit who get the £15 disregard are already among the better off lone parents because they are, by definition, in work, and they are receiving more generous disregards.
I have two final points. From work that has been carried out into single parents and maintenance payments it is clear that there continues to be the belief, which was thoroughly aired in your Lordships' House, that there will be a link between the duty of compulsory maintenance on the part of fathers and their right of access. We accept that, under the Children Act 1989, this is a matter for the courts but in practice, as was pressed in the other House, it will generate a demand for that right to be exercised. That is much dreaded by mothers where there may have been violence in the past relationship or where they are now in a new and, one hopes, stable relationship which they do not want disturbed by the re-emergence of a partner with whom they might have had only a transient relationship 10 years ago. There is nothing to stop absent fathers suddenly turning up without court permission. All the research shows that this is a serious consideration in people's minds.
Behind the matter is the wider question of child poverty. Low-income fathers cannot support two families. In practice many such fathers—I use the word deliberately—are in a second family, and it is the children especially of the second family who may well suffer as any increase in family income is deflected to support the first family. As the DSS research by Bradshaw and Millar states, too robust a maintenance regime may impoverish second families and their children, thus increasing the possibility of breakdown of that second family relationship. The right response is not only to pursue appropriate maintenance—we do not dispute that—but to brigade it with enhanced child benefit. All the evidence shows that the acceptable method of income support for lone parents fearing violence, fearing the re-establishment of a relationship, trying to protect their privacy and trying to protect any new relationship into which they have entered as well as protecting the rights of the second

171
family, is through child benefit rather than through these proposals for compulsory support and extremely high fees.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I remember the first regulations on which I had to speak in the House being described by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as of a more than usually impenetrable character. There is a mystery about regulations; the task of penetrating the unintelligible language; almost an odour of the road to Samarkand. But on this occasion I am really disappointed. These regulations are almost comprehensible. It is really extremely surprising.
Just as there is no free lunch, there is no free maintenance assessment. Someone has to pay for it. It must be by fees or by the taxpayer or by some combination of the two. I am not entirely clear, even after listening to my noble kinsman, why he has decided that there must be a substantial contribution from the clients. The only reason my noble kinsman gave was that it was not right to ask the taxpayer to pay because many taxpayers have children themselves. But if that were to be the sole general principle I think it would do rather more than my noble kinsman, I hope, intends. I should like a little more explanation of why the Government have thought it best on this occasion to introduce a fee regime. This is not necessarily to say that they are wrong. I cannot pass any judgment on whether they should have done it until I have some idea of why they have done it.
Admittedly, there are plenty of other cases of use of fees; for example, applications for passports. But those who apply for a passport normally do so voluntarily. The caring and absent parents with whom we are here dealing did not ask for this Act. The Act came in ostensibly to relieve the pressure on the taxpayer, so it is the taxpayer who is expected to benefit. One would have thought that that might have made a case for it being the taxpayer who pays. I am not dealing now with general questions arising from the policy behind the Act but I will say in passing that I agree with the general tenor of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, had to say, especially the points about guidance in the case of the mother who refuses to name the father, and the £15 disregard on income support. I should like to associate myself quite strongly with both those points.
We seem to be witnessing something of a general trend towards fees. It is not the first time in our history that that has happened. It happened very strongly in the early 17th century, which was also a period dominated by a low taxation philosophy. One of the best historians of this subject has classified fees as a form of indirect taxation. I think he is right about that. If we accept that idea it has some quite far-reaching implications. We are not here reducing the burden of taxes; we are simply shifting the burden of taxes from one taxpayer to another, so there is room for some discussion about whether that is in fact right. I hope that, for future figures about the proportion of GNP that goes in taxation, fees will be taken into account in the calculations.
172
Of course, there have been problems in the past about any very heavy use of fees as an alternative to taxation. The biggest in the 17th century soured the relationship between officials and members of the public with whom they had to deal. I hope that my noble kinsman will listen to reports coming back from the Child Support Agency and see whether there is any danger of that happening in this case. If it does, I hope he will think again.
Among other problems I would again associate myself strongly with what the noble Baroness had to say about students. I am also a little unhappy about the wording of Regulation 4(8):
"If a fee invoice is sent by post to a person's last known or notified address, it shall — be treated as having been given or sent on the second day after the day of posting".
That is a little optimistic, is it not? I had a letter sent to me from the House Magazine on 23rd September which reached me on 23rd November. Let us suppose that I had been an absent parent faced with a maintenance assessment and had done nothing. What would have happened to me as a consequence? I should be grateful for an answer to that question.
The biggest problem is the size of the fee. I noted from what my noble kinsman said that they are not seen as full cost fees. I listened also to the noble Baroness. That moves me to ask exactly what is meant by "full cost". Exactly how has this sum been calculated? What is the rationalisation behind it? It is a sum which will be paid by people only just over the level of income support—£44 as a lump sum may be quite burdensome. I should like to know what will happen to people who do not pay these fees and say that they cannot. Presumably some unpleasant consequence will follow. I should like to know what that is. The problem of this second family which has been referred to is extremely relevant.
I should also like to ask my noble kinsman, and the Government in general, how this House should proceed if it thinks, for example, that these fees are too large and that it would approve the regulation if they were smaller. I wish to reassure my noble kinsman that I shall not pursue this matter further on this occasion, but if we are asked to approve a regulation, as we are, it must be possible for us to say that we would approve it if one point were different. I should like to know what is regarded as an acceptable method of pursuing that point; and I do not mean just making representations to the Government and praying for them to change their mind, which they might or might not do.
These regulations are supposed to take effect by approval of the House. Suppose, for example, the fee were £500 and the House thought it grossly excessive, how could the House give effect to the view that it would approve the regulations if the fee were smaller? There must be a practical way in which that can be done. I should like to know what it is.
Finally, I should like to know what my noble kinsman proposes to do in the way of monitoring any hardship caused by the payment of these fees to those on whom they are imposed. I have a hunch that if he collects information he might find that the burden is a great deal heavier than he at present supposes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am that my noble kinsman for once finds these regulations somewhat penetrable. I am glad that he can understand them. A number of concerns have been raised by both my noble kinsman and the noble Baroness. I hope I can deal with some of them, but obviously I will concentrate on those relating to the regulations themselves. The first and most important fundamental question that my noble kinsman raised is why should the clients be paying fees, full stop. Before I answer that I should respond to one point my noble kinsman made, and that is the Bill was not brought in purely and simply for the relief of the taxpayer; it was brought in so that absent parents, frequently the father, did honour their obligations to pay for their children.
What these regulations establish is the requirement that, in general, the client of the agency should pay a fee. Now currently the parent will have to pay the courts the cost of having maintenance determined in the courts. Although the determination of the amount of child maintenance is passed from the courts to this agency, that does not mean the taxpayers themselves should now shoulder the total costs of the determination of child maintenance.
Turning to the actual level of the fees, figures of £25 or thereabouts were based on early estimates of numbers that we would be likely to be dealing with. Obviously this assumption has now been refined. The level of fees has now been calculated, as my honourable friend said in another place, to take account of the full economic costs of the agency. I think, in passing, one ought to say that these costs will be considerably more reasonable than certainly a great many charged by some of the solicitors we know of and certainly the costs of the courts. I am grateful that I do not see many of our friends from the learned professions in the House at this moment.
My noble kinsmen then asked as to what his attitude should he, or what procedures he should follow, if he feels that the regulations themselves are acceptable but the actual figures themselves are too big. I am afraid I have to say that I think that the best bet is that my noble kinsman makes representations to the Government. As I understand it, it is not customary to amend regulations in this House or another House, and therefore it is a matter for the regulations themselves to specify the exact figure. Therefore, there is no power, as I think my noble kinsman is aware, to amend them. I can only suggest he makes representations, as I said, to myself.
Turning to the exemptions and those who will be exempted, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, accepted that it had been drawn relatively widely so as to protect the interests of those who cannot afford to pay fees. Most of those are listed in Regulation 3(5), although I would also mention that in Scotland, under Regulation 3(1), a child applicant in Scotland will not be required to pay a fee. The other exemptions cover chiefly those who have no, or a relatively low, income: those on income support; family credit or disability working allowance; any children of those whose assessable income is nil or who benefit from the protected income provisions
174
which are designed to protect the position of those for whom payment of the maintenance assessment in its entirety would result in their falling below income support levels. The circumstances applicable would be those of the party who would otherwise be required to pay these. The circumstances, I think I said in my opening remarks, of the other party's assessment will have no impact either way.
Concern was expressed by both my noble kinsman and the noble Baroness as to why students over the age of 18 should be charged fees, but not those, say, still at school. Students in advanced education are considered independent. The definition of those exempt from fees follows that for those regarded as dependent for child benefit purposes in line with the meaning of "child" in the Child Support Act, but I have to say that it is most likely that most students would come under one of the exemptions of either nil assessable income or come in under protected income anyway.
The noble Baroness asked about the guidelines on refusal to co-operate with officers in the Child Support Agency. We have made it consistently clear that the requirements to co-operate will be waived when harm or undue distress will be caused. I should like to repeat that assurance. The staff in the Child Support Agency will be very carefully trained to conduct interviews sensitively. Guidance will be available, but we are very anxious not to create what might be termed, say, a thugs' charter, so we are still considering very carefully whether or not the guidance should be published. The principle is that the agency will be an open, accessible organisation.
I think the noble Baroness also asked for confirmation that an absent parent on income support would only be required to make a contribution to maintenance—I think the noble Baroness accepted that we are not now talking about fees—if single or childless couple. I can give the noble Baroness that assurance; an assurance that, again, deductions will be well down the list of deductions, and, in general, there is an overall maximum for all deductions, whether they are for housing, fuel, or whatever, of some 15 per cent.
Finally, the noble Baroness—I have one or two other points—did stress that there was a belief common among many people that there was a link between access and maintenance. Again—this was made quite clear in both Houses during the passage of the Bill—we cannot stress enough that there is no link between access and maintenance. Access will still be a matter for the courts, but I do understand the concern of my noble kinsman that we should listen to any evidence that emerges from the Child Support Agency as to there being perceived to be a developing link between access and maintenance, and certainly we will take that into account if necessary.
My noble kinsman also asked about Regulation 4(8) and invoices being sent to a person's last known address. This regulation is to establish receipt of the invoice. If a parent approached the agency to say that he had not received the invoice, the agency would

175
consider all the circumstances. It is just a general court rule for posting and is in fact common throughout legislation.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the points that have been raised by the noble Baroness and my noble kinsman. I understand my noble kinsman might have concerns about the levels of fees—the actual figure that we pitched them at —but I think he understands the conventions relating to affirmative instruments. I hope that on this occasion he is prepared to accept them and make subsequent representations to myself and other Ministers in the Department of Social Security. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Estate Agents (Specified Offences) (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 1992
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 18th November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Estate Agents Act empowers the Director General of Fair Trading to make orders prohibiting unfit persons from doing estate agency work. The Estate Agents (Specified Qffences) No. 2 Order 1991 extended the range of circumstances in which the director general may exercise his powers to prohibit persons whom he considered to be unfit. It did so by specifying a number of offences which could trigger the director general's powers to prohibit.
The order adds the offence of property misdescription to the list of trigger offences. It complements the enactment last year of the Property Misdescriptions Act which creates the offence of making false or misleading statements about property in the course of estate agency and property development. A parallel order will give practical effect to that Act.
The order is the product of wide-ranging consultation. Trade associations, professional organisations and consumer groups were invited to comment. My department received, in addition, numerous personal representations on the matter. I should like to thank everyone who contributed constructively to the consultation. The cost to estate agents of complying with the order will be negligible, nor is it anticipated that there will be an increase in the enforcement costs of the Office of Fair Trading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 18th November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Peston, who is unavoidably delayed, may I simply warmly welcome this measure, especially when I can tell the House that it was my honourable friend in another place, Bryan Davies, as the Member of Parliament for Enfield North in 1979, who brought in the original Bill to which has been
176
added these various safeguards. He is back in the House now representing Oldham. He must have taken a great interest in the matter.
There is nothing with which we would disagree. However, I wonder whether the Minister can help us. She invited the House to add to the list of trigger actions the words in the order. Will she tell us some of the illustrations that she must have in her file? I am intrigued. I know that draftsmen and ministries do not idly spend their time and money: there must have been some good illustrations. The order must be the product of the situation in the housing market over the recent period. We know that it was volatile in 1988 and 1989 and that it has been absolutely dead from 1990 to the present day. Could the Minister explain some of the causes for bringing forward the order now?
Will the noble Baroness also explain the extent of the order? Are we reacting to complaints from a few people, valid as they are, or is there widespread demand and need for this addition? In addition to the bodies that I am sure were properly consulted, was there an endeavour, for instance, to consult the citizens advice bureaux? As a Member of the other place, I would have a number of constituents bringing to me their aggravations about misdescriptions of property. In my experience then, as now, the citizens advice bureaux were often inundated with this sort of thing.
Although bona fide estate agents would not mind being policed or having to conform with the order, is it the case that they themselves were anxious that it should be introduced or did they simply acquiesce and see it as inevitable that their industry needed to carry this additional burden? The Minister will understand that these are benign questions; they are not malevolent or malicious. They are designed to elicit information. If I had been advised perhaps earlier than my noble friend advised me tonight, I might have taken the trouble to find this out before, but I was not, and that is why I ask these questions.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for his support. The purpose of this order is simply to allow the director general to prohibit individuals convicted of an offence under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, whom he considers unfit, from continuing to engage in estate agency work. Tonight all we are considering is that if this order was not made such individuals would be able to continue in business as estate agents, and not that the matter of misdescriptions was discussed and dealt with in the earlier Act. I would reassure the noble Lord that the department has close relationships with the citizens advice bureaux and recognises their closeness to the consumer, and they are part of the people with whom we keep in regular conversation. Had they wanted to comment on this particular order, I am sure they would have done so.
The estate agents who are behaving properly and ethically are delighted to ensure that the reputation of their profession is maintained. It may help the noble Lord if I draw attention to the fact that the number of prohibition orders made since the Estate Agents Act came into force is 177, but not significantly changing

177
this year, which I think answers his question as to whether the market has forced people out. With this Act we give the Director General for Fair Trading the power to act. I should be grateful if the House would support this order.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should say that the figure she has given of 177 cases that have caused action—and we know that for every one who is caught or dealt with there will be many others who escape—is sufficient for this minor piece of legislation and the time taken by Parliament to effect an additional protection. I accept what the noble Baroness has said that we are not concerned with the Act itself, but with prohibiting those who have been found guilty of contravening the Act from continuing to operate.
Estate agency is sadly one of those professions where almost anyone can set up as an estate agent, and if the gullible public care to deal with the cowboys and the sharks, then they need protection. I look upon this as a good piece of consumer protection legislation.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord. I am able to answer on a couple of points on property misdescription, which may be helpful to the House. Claims that an historic character lived in a house that are not sustainable would not be acceptable; nor would the claim that the house is in a quiet street when it suffers from community traffic. We are looking at specifically the same thing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gas (Exempt Supplies) Bill [H.L.]
8.16 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
First, I must declare an interest. I am chairman of a small company which is an authorised gas supplier in terms of Section 8 of the Gas Act 1986. Gas is incidental to our main business, being only 2 per cent. or thereabouts of our turnover.
This Bill removes unnecessary bureaucracy, a matter to which the Government attach high priority. It is capable of enhancing the living standards of those who would benefit from it when enacted, and it allows for future developments in the gas industry.
I must also thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for her help in the workings of this House and other advice behind the scenes to ensure that I said the right thing at the right time. I must particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whose advice and vast experience in the energy industry has been of invaluable assistance to me in the work connected with this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Lord Cochrane of Cults.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  ALLEGED WAR CRIMINALS: INVESTIGATION COSTS
  ALLEGED WAR CRIMINALS: INVESTIGATION COSTS
  SERVICE BOARD OF INQUIRY REPORTS
  SERVICE BOARD OF INQUIRY REPORTS
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA: SWISS REFERENDUM RESULT
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA: SWISS REFERENDUM RESULT
  WINE: TESTING FOR IMPURITIES
  WINE: TESTING FOR IMPURITIES