Sitting of 6 February 1992

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (BY ORDER)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read a Third time on Thursday 13 February.
ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL
(BY ORDER)
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)
CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)
EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)
KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.)
(No. 2) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
(By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 13 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Nutritional Supplements
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking on proposals for new EC legislation or regulations on nutritional supplements; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): We are currently consulting all the interests concerned on a Commission discussion paper on possible controls. Our response to the Commission's paper will be formulated in the light of that detailed consultation.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware of the continuing concern among natural health therapists and others about the inadequate consultation so far by the Government on this important matter and of the allegations of serious omissions and inaccuracies in the Denner report, which was supposed to be based on previous consultations? In view of the fears expressed about the possibility of serious restrictions being placed on the availability of certain nutritional supplements as a result of the new EC regulations, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will conduct far wider and genuine consultations on the discussion paper that has been produced by the European Commission?
    Mr. Maclean: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we conducted wide discussions on Dr. Denner's excellent report which was the basis for consultation. We consulted more than 160 separate organisations on that. We now have an EC discussion paper and we shall consult all those organisations as well. Everyone—and anyone—is invited to make representations to us. I urge people to talk to us as quickly as possible so that we can have meaningful discussions in the EC. We shall continue to consult organisations as the negotiations progress.
    Mr. Ashby: Is not the problem for my hon. Friend that there are so many diverse views on nutritional supplements that it is hard to know from which set of experts one should take advice? From which set of experts will he take advice in this respect? Will it be the organised medical practitioners as we know them today or those who are practising in the area? Their views are as relevant as anyone's.
    Mr. Maclean: I accept that many experts have a relevant view here. Let me state a couple of fundamental principles that we hold dear. We believe that anyone who wants to buy mineral pills or vitamin supplements has the right to buy them, provided that they are safe. On the other hand, I strongly believe that if people consume a normal, adequate and balanced diet, they should receive almost all the vitamins that they need, unless they are under doctor's orders. As I said to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we shall consult widely all the various interests and, no doubt, other European countries will receive representations from manufacturers, from users and from suppliers.

    Agricultural Employment
    Mr. Eadie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about levels of employment within the agricultural industry.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The 1991 census of agricultural holdings showed that the number employed in agriculture in June 1991 was 628,000, a decline of 2 per cent. from June 1990.
    Mr. Eadie: I thank the Minister for the information that he has given the House. Does he agree that farmers and farmworkers are the backbone of rural communities? Is he aware that this year their numbers have declined by about 9,000? Is the Minister also aware that, in my area of Lothian, since the Government gained office, roughly one third of farmworkers have lost their jobs? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he proposes to do about that?
    Mr. Curry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that increasing productivity in agriculture has been a feature in the past, both in good years and in bad. Employment has gone down only 11 per cent. in 10 years and a great deal of that is due to higher productivity. The hon. Gentleman asked what we would do about that fall in employment. The first thing we must do is to defeat the MacSharry proposals that target British farm workers, and particularly those relating to sheepmeat, which represent a direct attack on those who work in British agriculture—not merely those who own or rent farms but those employed on them. That is our first priority.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the whole thrust of the proposals, as they are currently based, directly discriminates against efficiency? Will he undertake that when he and my right hon. Friend the Minister go to Brussels next week for that crucial meeting, they will continue to fight for British agriculture as a whole and not bend over backwards to please MacSharry, as the Opposition would do?
    Mr. Curry: I give my hon. Friend that pledge with a great deal of enthusiasm. We have always fought for all the people employed in British agriculture, whatever their status. It is particularly important that we have the support of everyone in the House. We must recognise that many people who earn relatively modest wages and who are essential to the rural economy will be the first to be put at risk by those proposals. We will fight them.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Can the Minister explain why 10,000 full-time farmers left the land last year? There is no point in blaming MacSharry, because that happened last year.
    Mr. Curry: It has been happening all the time and, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, it has been happening constantly. Even in the best years for agriculture, people have been leaving the land because the trend is towards larger units, maximising productivity and getting the best out of the work force. I cannot stand here and guarantee that we can halt that long-term consolidation of holdings in agriculture. No Minister in the European Community could do that. We will do our best to ensure that we maintain a sensible, profitable structure for agriculture in the United Kingdom in the interests of all those employed by it and involved in it.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend accept that with falling net incomes, particularly in the hills, and diminishing employment prospects, everyone on the Conservative Benches wishes him well for the negotiations in Europe? We cannot possibly accept the MacSharry proposals as they stand because they discriminate against British farming more than anything else.
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend and I have spelt that that out categorically in meeting after meeting. We shall continue to do that until Mr. MacSharry understands it.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister appreciate that, today, 25 farm workers will lose their jobs and 14 farmers will be forced off the land? Does he appreciate that for every single day that he and his right hon. Friend have been in office in Whitehall place, we have similarly lost 25 farm workers and 14 farmers? Have they no conscience about that? Do they not feel any personal responsibility? It is simply not good enough to blame MacSharry, because his proposals, bad as they are, have not yet affected British agriculture.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman would know if he had addressed as many farmers' organisations as I have that the first question farmers ask is how we can deal with the uncertainty of the MacSharry proposals, which now confront us. We know that there are other uncertainties, such as GATT, which represents an equally difficult problem. What happens eventually in eastern Europe will also present just as much difficulty for our farmers.
    Our first task is to remove the uncertainties with which we can deal, and the first of those are the proposals of Mr. MacSharry. Until we have dealt with that, there will not be the certainty in the industry which will give people the confidence they need to invest. Otherwise we shall see a continuing decline over and above that which increased productivity would normally dictate.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Boscawen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the planned expansion of environmentally sensitive areas.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): In my statement to the House of 15 January, I explained the steps that I had taken to improve the first five environmentally sensitive areas designated in 1987, my plans for reviewing this year those ESAs designated in 1988, including any boundary adjustments, and my timetable for designating a further 12 areas this year and in 1993.
    Mr. Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the new, enhanced payments for those who take up ESAs and the improvements in the scheme are widely welcomed by the farmers concerned? Does he agree that the scheme must remain voluntary if it is to retain its value? Will he, if it remains voluntary, reassure farmers who would like to take up the scheme that the payments will not be reduced during the period for which they take it up—that is, for five or even 10 years? Does he appreciate that the great advantage of the scheme in the Somerset Levels, which I represent and where I live, is that all parties interested in the conservation of the wildlife and landscape of the area

    441
    are sitting down and talking together? That represents a great advance and we believe that, in the long term, something valuable will come of that.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a major advantage of the situation, which is that conservationists and farmers in environmentally sensitive areas are learning to work together. I hope that the changes in the Somerset Levels will do a great deal to ensure that the area is much improved for wading birds. We are watching the situation carefully to make sure that that is the effect.
    Mr. Dalyell: How much money will be put into the 12 new areas by the Treasury?
    Mr. Gummer: As I have announced, total spending will be about —65 million a year. A large amount of new money will go into the new areas. When we have completed the prescriptions, we shall be able to give a detailed account of how much will be spent in each ESA, so that details of the total amount will be in the public domain.

    English Lamb (Hijacking)
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times English lamb has been hijacked in France: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: Since June 1990, there have been 16 such incidents in France involving British lamb exports.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I congratulate him on his robust stance in defence of British farmers, particularly those producing lamb, in stark contrast to the attitude of Labour Members, who wobble on everything. Indeed, had they been defending British farmers, particularly, those producing lamb, they would have achieved only a load of jelly—and red at that.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has a characteristically robust way of demanding our continued support for British lamb producers. I am sure that he was as pleased as I was that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), spent some time last week promoting British lamb in the middle of France. I hope that, as a result, the French will eat a great deal more of our lamb, which is the best in the world.
    Mr. John P. Smith: I remind the Minister that we also have some excellent Welsh lamb, much of which comes from my constituency in the Vale of Glamorgan. Is he aware that had the Government encouraged investment in slaughtering facilities, we would not be exporting the jobs that are now being lost?
    Mr. Gummer: This is one issue on which the hon. Gentleman might have commenced his supplementary question by saying that most people in Wales are pleased with the way in which the Government have fought for the British lamb industry as a whole and that Welsh consignments have been fought for, too. The hon. Gentleman has been singularly silent in the battle.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we in Britain import more agricultural produce from France than we export to France? Does he agree that it is good that the British farming community is not as violent as appears to be the case on the continent? Does he further
    442
    agree that that speaks volumes for the decency of the British farming community, which does not react in kind to French imports?
    Mr. Gummer: I congratulate the British farming industry on keeping its temper at times when it could easily have boiled over and reciprocated. That has brought a great deal of success, because the French Government are now taking the tough measures that we have been pressing on them for 10 years. That major success is a result of the British farming industry's behaviour.

    Meat Labelling
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to oblige food companies to label meat according to the method of production.
    Mr. Maclean: All food labelling is controlled by the European Commission. Britain cannot unilaterally compel meat companies to show the method of production on the label unless the majority of member states agree.
    Mr. Mullin: No, but we can make an effort, can we not, to persuade our European colleagues to join us in that. What effort has the Minister made so far? If he is really concerned about consumer choice and the gross excesses of the factory farming industry, proper labelling is an effective and cheap way to deal with them.
    Mr. Maclean: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to a policy of informative labelling. That is why we are following the advice of our independent Food Advisory Committee to explore a voluntary, standardised, humane labelling system. We are actively pursuing that now.
    Mr. Hill: Would not the simplest advice to the British public be that they should always buy British beef, pork and veal? There will then be no chance of contamination.
    Mr. Maclean: For a whole host of reasons, yes Sir.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Why is there such a gulf between the Minister's actions and his words? Are not consumers still being denied freedom of choice, resulting in delays in the introduction of more humane systems of husbandry? Will the Minister confirm that he has no intention of taking meaningful action, but that he is afraid to say so because an election is coming up?
    Mr. Maclean: It really is not good enough for a spokesman for the official Opposition to come here in spite, without reading the official report by the independent advisory committee. That report says:
    "We do not recommend a requirement to indicate animal rearing methods on foods labels …we therefore recommend that the possibility of drawing up a standard system, which clearly defines terms to indicate welfare-orientated rearing methods, should be considered".
    That is what we are actively pursuing.

    Meat Inspection
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in determining the future provision of meat inspection services; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: The Government are currently considering the findings of the recent review of meat hygiene enforcement and will announce their decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend accept the need to harmonise not only the standards but the costs of meat inspection? Why is Great Britain the only country in the Community to impose full economic cost recovery? So long as that situation continues, the British meat and livestock industry will be placed at a severe competitive disadvantage.
    Mr. Maclean: Because of the EC directive on the harmonisation of charges, which Britain, as usual, has implemented fairly and expeditiously, the meat inspection regime is not properly harmonised. That is one of the reasons why British inspection costs impose a higher burden on our producers. We must consider that when we look at an alternative structure for the present arrangements for meat hygiene inspection.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that, before I came to this place, I served for many years on a local authority as chairman of the environmental health committee, which had a wonderful section for meat inspection? Because the Government and Conservative Members supported the poll tax, local authority meat inspection is in difficulty. Conservative Members should stop appearing before the cameras attacking the Labour party's policies and, instead, start to do their jobs properly, enabling local authorities to provide proper meat inspection facilities in the interests of the community. They should get off their backsides and let us see what they intend to do about it.
    Mr. Maclean: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. However, there is one wee flaw that I shall draw to his attention—all local authorities have full cost recovery on their meat inspection systems. The Government have taken no action to limit the authorities' scope for charging. That is the problem of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) spoke; many Labour-controlled local authorities charge way over the oddds.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has raised an urgent and important issue? We have been struggling for years with an inadequate meat hygiene inspection system and we need, as soon as possible, to replace it with a centralised system that will guarantee high standards and uniform costs. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House a commitment on the timing of that replacement. That change would be in the best interests of the meat industry, the consumer and animal welfare.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend has made a good point. I would defend the system by saying that it is not inadequate in that it certainly guarantees quality and safety in this country, but it leaves much to be desired in that it is diverse and scattered throughout hundreds of different local authorities. The changing EC directives have placed responsibilities on the Government. We are currently considering all viewpoints, and I can assure my hon. Friend that when we are in a position to announce our final decision, we shall do so as speedily as possible.

    Poultry Industry
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the poultry industry to discuss the state of the sector.
    Mr. Curry: We have regular meetings with representatives of the poultry industry.
    Mr. Wareing: When the Minister next meets representatives of the industry, what will his answer be if they tell him that our poultry meat inspection charges are not subsidised, unlike those of our European Community competitors? That means an extra 4p a pound on poultry meat to British farmers, with the result that 18 per cent. of poultry meat is imported into this country. The disadvantages placed on the industry mean that it costs our farmers 5p a dozen more to produce eggs. Are the Government trying to ruin our industry at a time when 18 per cent. of poultry meat is imported and we have a food trade deficit of more than £6 billion—the worst deficit of any industry in this country?
    Mr. Curry: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite got his figures right on imports. We are 98 per cent. self-sufficient in poultry meat, although there has been an increase in imports of whole frozen chickens, which have penetrated the market. That happened in 1990, not last year, when the figures were relatively stable. It is true that the industry has to bear some costs. The House will have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said about the poultry meat inspection charges. We have to impose charges when dealing with salmonella. It would be irresponsible not to guarantee to the consumer that British products are absolutely safe to eat. I have no doubt that those same consumers, when exercising their choice about what to buy, will want to be absolutely sure that products imported to the United Kingdom have had to undergo precisely the same levels of checks and monitoring as products exported from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware of concern in the poultry industry about meat inspection. There is a difference in price of 4p a pound in poultry meat due to inspection charges. Will my hon. Friend press the Treasury to sort out the issue of the cost of meat inspection to ensure that the thousands of jobs presently at risk in the poultry industry will be made secure?
    Mr. Curry: The complaint about meat inspections in the United Kingdom is that the charges levied by different local authorities vary widely. Some of the overall costs are due to meat inspections, but not all of them. It is important to recognise, too, that there are certain structural problems in the industry; but, above all, we must tackle the problem of the failure of the French to observe the rules effectively and their failure to employ enough inspectors. We have opened discussions with Mr. MacSharry on that, we are pushing the Community for urgency on the zoonoses regulations, and the Commission has before it a proposal to overhaul the meat inspection and meat hygiene directive. We shall push on all those matters in the interests of the United Kingdom poultry industry.
    Mr. Salmond: If the Minister holds meetings on the poultry industry, why does not his hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), the

    445
    Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, agree to meet me to discuss the case of my constituent Mr. Johnston, a duck producer from Sharnidubs, who has been shabbily treated by the Ministry? Does the Minister understand that the arrogance and insensitivity of his hon. Friend, who has not agreed to a meeting for about four months now, has been noted not just by Mr. Johnston but by every farmer in the north-east of Scotland?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Member's limited range of adjectives will have been noted by everyone in the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will always defend the Department's policies in this House; he will do so whenever challenged to.

    "Our Farming Future"
    Mr. Marland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has had to his recent policy document "Our Farming Future".
    Mr. Gummer: "Our Farming Future" has been widely acknowledged as a realistic and helpful statement of the Government's approach to the challenges facing the farming industry in the 1990s.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how useful, helpful and informative many farmers have found the document "Our Farming Future"? That is because it demonstrates how poorly British farmers co-operate to sell their products—I hope that my right hon. Friend's marketing grants will assist with that problem—and spells out in words of one syllable that the British farmer will not be discriminated against in Europe.
    May I take this opportunity of wishing my right hon. Friend the very best of luck at the Agriculture Council meeting next week, when the future of agricultural policy and the appalling proposals of Mr. MacSharry will be discussed?
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I think that he will agree that "Our Farming Future" could cover only the factors over which we have real control. The decisions that will be made on the common agricultural policy and on the GATT talks will be those which most affect farmers in the future. I want to get those decisions as quickly as possible, but they must be the right decisions because unless they are, the future of British farming will be under a cloud.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there are at least three farmers in the Bolsover area whose future is bleak? Since June of last year two of them have not been allowed to sell their milk because it is contaminated with dioxins. The Minister has promised on several occasions to ensure that the matter is cleared up. He has received a letter from one of the farmers which I sent him a few days ago. It is time he responded and paid compensation to those farmers, and allowed them to get on with earning their livelihood, instead of telling them that there is nothing for them from the Ministry of Agriculture.
    Mr. Gummer: No one would have guessed from that question that every one of the farmers affected has been paid regularly while we carry out the necessary tests to discover what has caused the problem. I have never known
    446
    a Member of Parliament so unwilling to accept the work that has been done by the Ministry on behalf of his constituents.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will not be much of a farming future unless British farmers improve their marketing arrangements so that they can compete with foreign imports?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that that is right. Many farmers are taking that message seriously. I compliment the National Farmers Union on bringing out an adventurous scheme to complement what the Government are doing and what farmers are doing. The whole industry is determined to make these changes, and the recent announced by the Milk Marketing Board of its determination to change its own structure is yet another example of an entirely new and welcome move in the industry.
    Dr. David Clark: In view of the exhortation by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) a few minutes ago that we should buy British when we buy food, I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House what representations he has received from the Ministry of Defence on his consultation document? Can he further explain to the House how the Ministry of Defence justifies importing thousands of tonnes of beef from South America to feed our forces when we have almost 1 million tonnes in intervention in Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: I find it a little difficult to take that kind of question from an hon. Gentleman who said that we ought to eat New Zealand apples and refuse to eat British sausages. That aspect of the hon. Gentleman's role is very difficult to take. I also find it difficult to take from somebody who has said that farmers have not done too badly. Farmers have been rather lucky, he said in a broadcast today. The hon. Gentleman has ceased to have any credibility in the farming industry. I am happy to tell him that my right hon. Friend is now looking to see whether there are better ways of sourcing Ministry of Defence needs among British and other European farmers.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made so far in reforming the European Community's common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Gummer: Discussions on CAP reform in the Agriculture Council are continuing. The next meeting of the Council is on Monday.
    Mrs. Gorman: What does my right hon. Friend think that people would say when they got their weekend grocery shopping if there was a little item on the end of the bill which read, "This bill includes £18 hidden subsidy, the result of the CAP"? Will he be having any talks with the Cairns group of countries, which involves major food producers such as Australia and New Zealand and is dedicated to getting rid of all subsidies, tariffs and quotas which put extra costs on food, and getting good-quality, cheap food back on the shelves—policies from which our farmers have absolutely nothing to fear?
    Mr. Gummer: If such an item were included on the bill, the customer could take the salesperson to the courts for

    447
    misuse of trade descriptions. Such a bill would be entirely fallacious. It is entirely based upon the fraudulent suggestion that, if we did not support agriculture, the prices now obtaining in the world at large would be our prices. Of course they would not; they are dumped prices as a result of support, and they would not obtain. Therefore, any housewife who receives such a bill should complain to the courts.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that, if the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks are concluded successfully and there is subsequent reform of the common agricultural policy, there is a great chance for an increase in production in the intensive sector in the pig and poultry industry once we gain access to cheap grain from the United States?
    Mr. Gummer: All kinds of suggestions could be made as to what would be the effect of the major changes which GATT and the CAP reform would bring about. I am not sure that what the right hon. Gentleman says is true. The way to deal with the international support system at the moment is to reduce it right across the board—for all support systems to be reduced at a speed which farmers can bear and which bears on different types of farmers equally, both within the Community and as between the Community and our competitors in the United States. What worries me at the moment about the proposals is that there is discrimination not only against the United Kingdom but against Europe in the way in which the Commission is carrying out the negotiations with the United States.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Farmers in Calder valley need continuity, as do farmers all over Europe. Will my right hon. Friend and his Department therefore spend a great deal of time in the next six months talking to our friends the Portuguese through the Portuguese presidency, so that they may adopt a sensible policy which we can then follow?
    Mr. Gummer: As Britain will assume the presidency next, we are carefully discussing with the Portuguese how we should proceed with common agricultural policy reform. We cannot bring that about successfully until we know what is to happen with the GATT agreement. It must come first, and then we can implement it through a sensible reform policy that encourages farmers to get closer to the market, helps them with environmentally friendly farming, does not discriminate against the United Kingdom, helps those in the less-favoured areas and gives early retirement to those who are prepared to restructure their farms.

    Hedgerows
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many miles of hedgerow he expects to be planted in the United Kingdom over each of the next three years.
    Mr. Curry: I cannot forecast future plantings, but between 1984 and 1990, some 16,000 miles of hedgerow were planted in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bennett: That is a disappointing answer. Does the Minister accept that the Government have continually prevaricated about encouraging the planting of new hedgerows? Is it not time that they devised a positive
    448
    policy, to ensure that the many thousands of miles of hedgerows that were grubbed up or allowed to go to waste over the years are replaced? Hedgerows are an important source of protection for flora and fauna, and it is sad that the Government have not dealt with that situation in a positive and effective way.
    Mr. Curry: I am somewhat doubtful about a concrete policy for hedgerows. Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the Government have for a number of years, under the farm and conservation grants scheme, provided a 40 per cent. rate of aid for new hedgerows. We are committed to legislating as soon as possible on a new scheme to protect hedgerows and to notify the intention to grub up. Meanwhile, the Countryside Commission is to introduce a national hedgerow management scheme this year. Add to that the various set-aside programmes, and the hon. Gentleman will find that agriculture's mood has changed towards amenity, and that, over the coming years, he will have greater cause for satisfaction.
    Mr. Nelson: I welcome the Government's measure to protect hedgerows and their management, but among the worst offenders in grubbing up hedgerows are local highway authorities. What advice does my hon. Friend the Minister have for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and local authorities, to ensure that, wherever possible, hedgerows are protected, since they can endure at least as long as roads?
    Mr. Curry: I will draw the suggestions that have been made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Our advice is that, where hedgerows are to be replaced, they should not be substituted just with a row of quickthorn between two strands of barbed wire, but with a mixed, proper, traditional hedge—which would be much better for the environment and habitat.
    Mr. Morley: The action taken through the farm and conservation grants scheme is most welcome, in terms of hedgerow planting. However, is it not the case that, under the present Government, thousands of miles of hedgerows have been lost over the years? Although the Government promise action to preserve hedgerows, they have not produced proposals for a hedgerow protection Bill. Is it not the case that when it comes to positive action and real decisions, the Government are always in the pocket of the landowners?
    Mr. Curry: This Government have done more than any of their predecessors to put the environment at the top of the agricultural agenda. Ours is the only Government who have as a priority in our negotiations in Brussels the provision that all subsidies should be subject to some form of environmental assessment. I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in believing that it is important that we develop such a policy—but neither he nor I, nor anyone else, can say that any particular state of agriculture is frozen. We must ensure that farmers realise that it is in their interests to restore the habitat and hedges. Everyone benefits from profitable and efficient agriculture, and from an amenity that we can all enjoy.

    Environmentally Sound Agriculture
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific grants are available to farmers to encourage the adoption of environmentally sound practices on agriculture.
    Mr. Gummer: My Department offers a number of grants to farmers that encourage the adoption of environmentally sound practices. Those and all other grants available from other statutory organisations are listed in our booklet "Conservation and Diversification Grants for Farmers".
    Mr. Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that farmers are caught in a pincer movement between the National Rivers Authority, which threatens prosecution of farmers who use more fertiliser on their land to increase productivity, and the banks, which are increasing their interest rates on loans to farmers, because they are considered a bad risk? Will my right hon. Friend, in his role as David against the EC Goliath, do his best to increase the grants available to farmers, so that, if they practise green policies, they will get their rewards?
    Mr. Gummer: A clearly stated aim of our debates in the European Community is the placing of environmentally sensitive farming at the centre of the reform of the common agricultural policy. We want to see the environment as a central theme, not as an "add-on extra"—
    a complementary series of measures, as proposed by Mr. MacSharry. That is one of the major changes in the MacSharry proposals that we intend to secure.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he was eight and I was a little older, Her Majesty the Queen acceded to the throne? Will he join me in expressing our deep respect, our loyal affection and our good wishes to Her Majesty on the 40th anniversary of her accession?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Queen has set a shining example of steadfast service over four decades of momentous political and social change, and will he wish her many more years of a great and glorious reign?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation. The Cabinet discussed the matter this morning, and the whole House may care to listen to the message that the Cabinet agreed to send Her Majesty:
    "At the Cabinet meeting today, Your Majesty's Ministers agreed that I should convey to Your Majesty our warmest good wishes on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Your Accession to the Throne. This was in recognition of the incomparable contribution Your Majesty has made to the life of our nation throughout your Reign."
    I am sure that those are sentiments that the whole House would wish to endorse.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I join the Prime Minister—and, I am sure, the whole House—in sending good wishes to Her Majesty, and in expressing the admiration that I know is felt throughout our country, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the wider world for the wisdom, strength and dedication that Her Majesty has invariably shown throughout the four decades in which she has been our sovereign?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for all our millions of fellow citizens.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Kinnock.
    Mr. Kinnock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    When the Prime Minister told us on Tuesday that, like the British economy, Japan's economy was, as he put it, in recession, had he overlooked the fact that last year, while our economy shrank by 2·5 per cent., Japan's economy grew by 4·5 per cent.?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of countries around the world are in recession, are heading towards recession or are coming out of recession. According to the latest figures, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden are at the moment in recession. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, the worst of the recession is over; in West Germany and Japan, growth has slowed and is slowing.
    I noted this morning that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) now at last admits that there is a world situation which is on a downturn. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will also have the courage to admit that.
    Mr. Kinnock: There are economies that are slowing; ours is in reverse because of the Prime Minister's policies.
    On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that Japan was in recession. It is worth reminding him of the fact that Japan's economy grew by 4·5 per cent., and ours shrank by 2·5 per cent. Japan's unemployment is at 2 per cent., while ours is at 9 per cent. Is it not now obvious that, because of his policies, the Prime Minister is reduced to imagining recovery at home while inventing recessions abroad?
    The Prime Minister: Every one of the right hon. Gentleman's policies would lead to a continuing recession, and that is well known. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that I head a Government who have cut interest rates seven times in the past 12 months, halved inflation in a year and built up the best industrial relations in half a century. The reality, I fear, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the economy or how it works. The right conditions for economic growth are low taxes, the right hon. Gentleman wants high taxes; low inflation, the right hon. Gentleman would engender high inflation; and good labour relations, the right hon. Gentleman would reintroduce the old, bad trade union practices. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposes would lead to the perpetual recession of which I spoke on Tuesday.
    Sir Bernard Braine: May I revert to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)? I speak as Father of the House. Is it not a matter of great rejoicing, wherever we may sit in the

    451
    House, that throughout the past 40 years, which have seen such momentous changes as the peaceful transition from empire to Commonwealth, the ending of the cold war and the coming together of former enemies in the European Community, Her Majesty has presided over this nation unfailingly, with a dignity and devotion to duty for which we are all greatly thankful?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is right and speaks with the authority of many years' membership of the House. One of the most striking facts of the Commonwealth, as I saw clearly at the Commonwealth conference in Harare, is the immense affection and admiration that exists for Her Majesty the Queen among all Commonwealth leaders and countries.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I associate myself, my right hon. and hon. Friends and our party with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister on the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty's accession to the throne?
    On the more unhappy subject of Northern Ireland, in the light of the appalling horrors which last night added to the seemingly endless litany of tragedy in that unhappy Province, does the Prime Minister agree that the first condition for defeating terrorism in Northern Ireland is to ensure that the politicians there get together and work together?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman's view on both the matters that he raised. The recent activities—the shooting of five men and the wounding of others the other evening—were another terrible and unnecessary scar on the history of Northern Ireland. It would greatly assist the activities in Northern Ireland and the search for peace if the clearest possible lead was given by all politicians in this country and Northern Ireland.
    Sir Alan Glyn: I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his message from the Cabinet and Government. Is he aware of early day motion 580, already signed by 165 hon. Members, which expresses the views of Back Benchers and their loyalty and congratulations to Her Majesty? It does not include members of the Cabinet or Government, or of the shadow Cabinet, and, unfortunately, is not even allowed to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Will my right hon. Friend please convey that message to Her Majesty?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend expresses sentiments that are shared by the whole House.
    Mr. Molyneaux: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen, and may I join in the other congratulations already expressed?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall ensure that Her Majesty is aware of what has been said.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister's remarks about Queen Elizabeth II? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that if politicians in Northern Ireland had been sitting at a table, the awful atrocities that we have witnessed in the past few days would not have taken place? If he and this House believe that, there is no hope for Northern Irleland.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words about Her Majesty the Queen.
    The point that I was seeking to make a moment ago—I reiterate it now—is that I think that it is to the advantage of everyone in Northern Ireland for the politicians of Northern Ireland, of all shades of opinion, to come together, to talk and to express their mutual wish for peace in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Eastham: The latest year for which figures are available on the number of new houses built in the United Kingdom is 1990. A comparison with 1980 shows that 38,000 fewer houses were built in 1990. Why is it the policy of the Government to build fewer houses?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman might more accurately have asked which local authorities had the highest number of vacant dwellings. I shall tell him: numbers of vacant dwellings are highest in Liverpool, then in Manchester, then in Salford, then in Burnley, then in Brent, then in Hackney, then in Tower Hamlets, then in Knowsley, then in Newcastle and then in Wolverhampton. The characteristic of all those areas is that for a long time they have been Labour controlled, although Conservatives have been in control in Brent for the past year and the Liberal Democrats have recently been in control in Tower Hamlets. There is no doubt which party fails people on housing.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of Sir Brian Corby, the president of the CBI, who said that to sign the social charter would be an act of remarkable lunacy? Does he agree that, if we signed the social chapter, employers' costs would rise and jobs and foreign investment would disappear, all of which would be bad for this country?
    The Prime Minister: I most certainly agree with that view, which is why I declined to sign the social chapter. I believe that it would cost jobs and cost prosperity in this country. It is noticeable that a number of other politicians abroad have made it perfectly clear that this country becomes a more attractive place for investment—and therefore for jobs and prosperity—because we are not committed to the costs of the social chapter.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Why have pensions dropped from 20 per cent. of average earnings to 16 per cent. under the Tories? Does the Prime Minister believe that pensioners were paid too much in 1979, or will he express regret at that meanness and raise pensions in line with Labour's plans?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should look at history. If he talks about pensioners, he should let the facts speak for themselves: under the previous Labour Government, the real average income of pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. and their income from savings fell by

    453
    16 per cent. The Labour party had no place for pensioners in the past and no promises that it can properly meet for the future.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: The Prime Minister will no doubt have noticed the interesting exception that President Bush made in his state of the union message to Congress, when he said that his Government were too big and spent too much. The exception was that he proposed to maintain research expenditure at the record level of $77 billion and to make permanent the fiscal allowances for research and development. If my right hon. Friend should be considering with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor any largesse over the next two or three weeks, will he ensure that a few crumbs from the Treasury table fall in that direction?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that there was a real-terms increase in the science and technology budget this year, a point that has been readily acknowledged by scientists up and down the country. As for potential largesse, there is no lack of applications for any that there might be.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: May I thank the Prime Minister for allowing his Ministers to vote as they wish on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on Friday 14 February, St. Valentine's day? If the Bill is passed, it will stop the massacre of harmless creatures like deer, hares and foxes.
    454
    No one expects the Prime Minister to be here to vote on Friday 14 February, but will he tell the House and the country whether he supports the abolition of fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing? I hope that his answer is yes.
    The Prime Minister: It is a matter for the individual conscience of every hon. Member, which is precisely why I am allowing a free vote by my Ministers on the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill in question goes a good deal wider than just the matters that he has been addressing. Because it goes a good deal wider, I will not myself be supporting it.
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend send a message today to the leaders of the National Association of Local Government Officers who are spending some £2 million on a shoddy and inaccurate advertising campaign, telling them that their policies of abandoning competitive tendering, abolishing the Audit Commission and introducing a minimum wage would be acceptable only to a party which has already sold its soul to the trade union bosses?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. It is clear that the advertisements appearing today show that now, as in the past, the Labour party remains in hock to the trade unions.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week, please?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY I0 FEBRUARY—Until about seven o'clock Second Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill [Lords].
Motions on the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order and the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order.
Motion on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY II FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
Consideration of timetable motion on the Further and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Severn Bridges Bill.
Second Reading of the Museums and Galleries Bill.
Proceedings on the Social Security Consolidation Bills. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on Welsh revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Army Bill.
FRIDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Transport and Works Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 12 February, at 10.30 am, to consider European Community document No. 4496/91 relating to allocation of slots at Community airports.
[Wednesday 12 February—Social Security Consolidation Bills.

1. Social Security Administration Bill [Lords].

2. Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

3. Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords].

4. Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

5. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill [Lords].

6. Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 12 February—Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports.

1. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–3 (HC 151).

2. Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 3) (HC 152).

3. Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (HC 153).

Wednesday 12 February—European Standing Committee A.
Relevant European Community Document—4496/91 Allocation of Runway Slots at Airports.
Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee—HC 29-xxii (1990–91) and HC 24-x (1991–92).]
Dr. Cunningham: Has the Leader of the House seen the sad and apparently serious announcement about errors in the treatment of many patients at the North Staffordshire royal infirmary? Can we be assured that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is inquiring into the matter? When the Secretary of State has had an opportunity to do so, may we have early next week a statement in the House about what is to be done in the interests of reassuring people, if that is possible, and of ensuring that the errors are not repeated?
Why are the Government railroading another Education Bill through the House with a guillotine? Why has the Secretary of State for Education and Science got into such a terrible mess with his legislation? Should we not have proper and adequate opportunities here to consider in detail the Further and Higher Education Bill. especially as it proposes to give draconian powers to the Secretary of State? Is this not further evidence of the Government's hidden timetable for a general election on 9 April? Why do not the Government come clean and announce that date, so that we can all co-operate in clearing up the dregs of the Government's business and get on with the election?
Can we have a statement next week about house repossessions and the Government's scheme that was supposed to help mortgage payers in difficulty? Why is it that so far only one building society has set up any scheme at all to help people in difficulties? Why did the Prime Minister claim in his interview on "Desert Island Discs" that the Government had solved the problem when that is manifestly not the case and when people involved in housing and building societies are still forecasting—sadly—that about 80,000 repossessions will take place this year? Should we not have another statement on the Government's scheme, which apparently has yet to get off the ground?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I shall discuss the North Staffordshire royal infirmary with my right hon. Friend.
I shall make one or two points in relation to the Further and Higher Education Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have a very heavy programme for this Session. Indeed, I have just announced four Second Readings for next week, including two new Bills, which I believe will be welcomed. I am hoping to fit in another Bill which has not yet been published but which I know is much demanded by all hon. Members. Therefore, I have to pay close regard to that and to trying to ensure that we manage the legislative timetable as best we possibly can.
On the Further and Higher Education Bill, there is much demand from universities, polytechnics, further education colleges and sixth form colleges to get on with it as quickly as possible so that any risk of a damaging effect on morale caused by delays and uncertainties can be avoided. That is what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman referred to draconian powers in the Bill. He will know that the issue was much discussed in another place and that amendments have been made as a result. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall have proper, adequate opportunities—as we did with the Local Government Finance Bill—to discuss all the issues that

457
arose in another place, including the one that the hon. Gentleman raised, as he will realise when he sees the timetable that I propose to introduce next week.
I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agreed—although perhaps not every hon. Member agrees with us—in the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) and welcomed the idea of timetables for Bills. The way in which we do it can be discussed, and no doubt we shall discuss it next Tuesday, but I think that he and I are agreed on the principle. We can discuss the details in a full debate next week, but the principle has been widely accepted and has worked well in the case of the Local Government Finance Bill.
On house repossessions, the hon. Gentleman will know that one part of the package to deal with house possessions included the Bill which the House passed last night, so we have been getting on with exactly that package. He will know that one building society has already reached an agreement. A considerable number of them are already taking a different view of repossessions, and I am sure that others will follow that lead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we are also to have an important statement on security in Northern Ireland. I shall allow business questions to continue until 4.5 pm, but I ask hon. Members to concentrate on the business for next week and not to seek to make purely electioneering points.
Mr. Michael Latham: With regard to next Tuesday's guillotine motion—the weekly guillotine motion—will my right hon. Friend please ensure that the timetable is drawn up so as to allow plenty of time to discuss vocational adult education? Those sections of the Bill are causing concern in Leicestershire.
Mr. MacGregor: I am, of course, aware of my hon. Friend's concern, as he has expressed it before in debates to which I have responded. I shall endeavour to ensure that the timetable is drawn up so as to allow all parts of the Bill to be discussed. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House will note a motion on today's Order Paper in the name of his right hon. Friend the Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household to convene a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Edinburgh to debate the Scottish Constitutional Convention. As many of his right hon. and hon. Friends often remind us, such questions are matters with implications for the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, if deliberations on the Bill to be introduced tomorrow by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)—the Home Rule (Scotland) Bill—are not completed, will the Leader of the House ensure that time will be made available to debate it next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance of any extra time next week for Bills promoted by any of his hon. Friends.
Mr. Roger Moate: I ask my right hon. Friend to consider early-day motion 285.
[That this House views with alarm the hardship faced by thousands of pub licensees and the damage being done to the
458
interests of consumers and to the industry as a whole; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to review the 1989 Beer Orders as a matter of the utmost urgency.]
The early-day motion is signed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and myself, among others, and has the support of 226 hon. Members from all parties. It reflects the anxieties of thousands of publicans throughout the land who are worried about the possible loss of their livelihood through the implementation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on beer, and the manner in which the regulations are being introduced.
Will my right hon. Friend please understand the urgency of the matter, which is causing great concern? Will he arrange for a debate on the subject, or a statement—or, if he cannot do either of those things, will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the urgent need for a review of the Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will have seen from the announcement that I have just made that next week will be very busy, so I cannot promise any time for a debate. However, I can assure him that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government are aware of the anxiety of licensees, and have met the major brewers to urge them to show understanding of licensees' difficulties. As my hon. Friend will know, the brewers have taken a number of steps in response—most notably by offering independent arbitration. My right hon. and hon. Friends are continuing to monitor developments closely.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that his answer on the north Staffordshire hospitals was far too leisurely? He merely said that he would discuss the matter with the Minister. It has been reported that nearly a thousand cancer patients have been wrongly treated for nine years. This could well be a matter of life and death. We want a statement today. The right hon. Gentleman should go and find the Minister now, and bring him to the Dispatch Box to tell us why people have been treated in that way. Will he please act at once?
Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I do not know the details of the issue, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State straight away.
Sir John Farr: I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend say that he hoped to get the Further and Higher Education Bill through so rapidly on Tuesday, and also discuss a timetable motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Milton (Mr. Latham) has said, there are loads of objections to the Bill. It is all very well to say that the other place has considered the Bill, but their Lordships were not aware of the many hundreds of representations that have been made in the east midlands and other parts of the country. Those representations can be dealt with, and matters put right, only in Committee stage, with a proper and fruitful debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not expect some of us to support a timetable motion in this case.
Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the issue that he has raised. He too has raised the subject of adult education on the Floor of the House. However, I did not suggest that the Bill would be dealt with next week any faster than is normal. We shall devote

459
the whole day to Second Reading, when it will be possible to raise such matters, exactly as we do with any other Bill. Second Reading will not be accelerated. Then we shall have a timetable motion, and my hon. Friend will be able to see—I hope that he will agree—that we are giving adequate consideration to the Committee stage. The Bill will then come back to the House in the normal way for further consideration.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week in response to what has been said by the chairman of the British yarn show, which opened in Leicester yesterday? That gentleman, who is also the chairman of Benson Turner in my constituency, said that the Government were indifferent towards dumping and illegal subsidies by other countries, and that the Department of Trade and Industry seemed completely indifferent to the representations rapidly made by the trade associations. He said that, if an improved attitude was not forthcoming, there would not be a spinning industry left to be dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry. May we have an urgent statement to clarify the position, which has been criticised clearly and strongly by an important member of the industry?
Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen the speech, so I cannot comment on it. In view of the business next week, I doubt whether I can promise an oral statement on the matter, but I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have a debate on the health service next week? Has he noted the contribution that might be made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has promised a leak a week? Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Gentleman already has leaked information, or are we in the business of hiring a theft a week?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to comment on the second part of the question unless other hon. Members raise it with me, in which case I should be happy to do so. I should be delighted to arrange further opportunities for debates on the health service as soon as we can find the time in which to do so. It is noticeable that the Labour party is reduced to using leaked management reports to denigrate NHS hospitals and to put entirely the wrong gloss on them, and to denigrate the people working in those hospitals for the sake of cheap publicity. We should be happy to refute all those cases.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Leader of the House arrange next week for a debate on the continuing problems facing the fishing industry? Would it be possible for us not only to discuss the 135-day tie-up and its implications, but, following the meeting between the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin, to consider especially the potential market in central and eastern Europe for the representatives of the pelagic fleet?
Mr. MacGregor: I recognise the importance of the issue, but given the pressure on business at the moment, I
460
cannot promise the hon. Lady a debate next week in Government time. However, as she knows, there are other ways in which such matters can be raised.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for an urgent debate on the situation of the raspberry growers in Tayside? He will be aware that Mr. MacSharry and his officials have been unable to arrive at an understanding or agreement which will ensure that we have a raspberry industry in Tayside in future.
Mr. MacGregor: As a former Minister of Agriculture, I am well aware of the difficulties that the raspberry industry faces from time to time in relation to imports. I am extremely well aware of the importance of that industry to Tayside, so I understand the importance of my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that he will make further representations to my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the matter. I know that the difficulty is often to obtain evidence to get appropriate action to deal with the matter.
Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Gentleman gave a reply a few minutes ago about the agruments between the licensees and the brewers, and he referred especially to the possibilities of arbitration. Will he take into account the fact that many of the cases that have been brought to our attention show that the offer of arbitration is an absolute fraud and that individual licencees have often been thrown out of their premises in the most shameful circumstances? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will come to the Dispatch Box next week to make a proper statement on the matter, so that he can be cross-examined?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a guarantee that there will be a statement next week, because of the pressures on business. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that Department of Trade and Industry Ministers are in contact with the major brewers to ensure that the procedures for independent arbitration or for assessment of rents provide genuine recourse for tenants. If the right hon. Gentleman has particular cases that he wishes to raise, I am sure that he will draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on pedestrian safety, so that I can explain to the House the urgent need for more crossings in various parts of my constituency, not least at Church road in Northholt, Argyle road in Ealing and Rowsell road in Northolt, where children and elderly people are seriously at risk? We have not discussed pedestrian road crossings, which are important in areas with a high volume of traffic such as those I have mentioned. May we have an early debate?
Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate in Government time. I know how assiduous my hon. Friend is in pursuing the interests of his constituents. He has raised particular constituency issues, and I hope that he is able to find other opportunities, such as Adjournment debates, to discuss them.
Mr. David Trimble: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the proposed debate on three Northern Ireland Orders in Council next

461
Monday? Does he not appreciate that that is a particularly inconvenient arrangement for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland? The Order in Council procedure is particularly unsatisfactory for us because, as a direct result of direct rule, we have a large amount of business to transact in Northern Ireland. If we have no assurance that the debate is at a convenient time, that business becomes disrupted. He might also like to reflect that we do not need the debate at all, because those orders apply to Northern Ireland legislation that has already been enacted in this House for Great Britain. If the legislation for Great Britain was done properly, we would not have to have such orders in the first place.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's second point raises wider considerations, but the arrangements I have made for next week in relation to Northern Ireland will enable in hon. Members to discuss the Orders in Council on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are often considerable difficulties in juggling all the requirements of the business for the week. I endeavour, wherever possible, to put business on appropriate days for those most interested. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that my arrangement means that we have adequate time for the debate on the Orders in Council, and that it will be held at a convenient time.
Mr. James Hill: I congratulate the Government on their excellent campaign to alert parents to the dangers their children can get into with the abuse of solvents. Currently, the death rate is about two children every week. Therefore, would it not be appropriate to have a debate next week, in which hon. Members from all political parties could take part, to point out, yet again, the dangers to parents and to remind them of the need to keep an eye on their children?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have embarked on a major publicity campaign to achieve precisely what he suggests. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will assist that campaign by the work they do in their constituencies, as my hon. Friend clearly intends to do.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 611, on the summary dismissal of Mr. David Plowright from his position as chairman of Granada Television?
[That this House is angered by the summary removal of Mr. David Plowright as Chairman of Granada Television; believes this crass act to be a direct result of Government policy in auctioning television franchises; recognises that this consequence has given the clearest indication yet that the future of independent television will be based upon profit, at the expense of programmes; notes that the recent successful franchise bid by Mr. Plowright and his team was part conditional upon him, and his management colleagues remaining in office until 1st January 1995; and therefore calls upon the Independent Television Commission to intervene.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Granada Television was awarded the franchise despite the fact that the consortium put together by North West Television bid nearly four times as much as Granada Television? It bid £35 million against the bid of £9 million by Granada. The members of that consortium have been found to be perfectly acceptable for the franchise on the other side of
462
the Pennines. Therefore, it was the proven quality of Granada's programmes which led to its award of the franchise. The decision on Mr. Plowright shows a cynical abandonment by Grenada of the criterion and demonstrates the essential stupidity of the arcane rules upon which the award of franchises is based. Will the right hon. Gentleman promise a statement on this matter next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not for me to comment on the individual actions that happened within the company. However, it is right for me to comment on the general points he raised in relation to programme quality. As he knows, the Independent Television Commission awards licences to companies and not to individuals. Each company's programme promises are incorporated in its licence conditions. Those will be enforced by the commission. It has a range of sanctions that it can impose under the Broadcasting Act 1990, including that of withdrawing the licence, if those promises are not met.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for an urgent debate on the plans for the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Community? In particular, will he take careful note of the fact that the logo for our presidency shows a lion at the centre of the flag? That will be appropriate if we are in government, but if we are not, it must be replaced by a lamb.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the logo that we have chosen is appropriate to show that we shall maintain British interests in a robust way, while of course participating absolutely fully in the European Community. That is what the symbol is designed to show.
I note my hon. Friend's request for a debate. I agree that these are extremely important matters, and I hope that the House will debate them on a number of occasions. They will also be a major issue to be discussed during the general election campaign, whenever it comes, because it is a key issue in relation to choice before the electorate. Whether next week is right for a debate I rather doubt. My hon. Friend will have to wait a little longer.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on early-day motion 481 relating to standing charges?
[That this House views with great concern standing charges being imposed on pensioners by British Gas, Electricity and Telecom, meaning an extra burden of £190 per year; recognising that many pensioners are already living below the poverty line, finds these scandalous charges a drain on their already stretched resources; therefore calls for the immediate abolition of all standing charges; and calls for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to call a meeting with all companies concerned with a view to alleviating this unnecessary hardship.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those charges represent fraudulent charges being imposed by British Telecom and the electricity and gas undertakings, because they are inflicting great hardship on senior citizens, who are currently having to fork out £190 a year to meet them? Will he do something about that?
Mr. MacGregor: It is the Government's view, in general, that it is better to give pensioners the money to spend as they prefer. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been substantial improvements in pensioners'

463
incomes in recent years and that, on those who are not sharing in that very substantial improvement, the Government have focused particular increases, involving substantial sums from the taxpayer.
We believe that it is better to do that, rather than to devote large sums to subsidies to, for example, the electricity companies, which is what would be involved in doing if we did what the hon. Gentleman suggests. The money would go to many people who have no difficulty in paying for the services. It is much better to target Government subsidies on those most in need.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members remain bitterly disappointed that there will be no opportunity next week to debate secondary education? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to remind the British people that the only party committed to the retention of grammar schools, CTCs, the assisted places scheme and as much variety of provision as possible, giving freedom of parental choice, is the Conservative party, whereas the Labour party and the party of the quasi-Liberal Democrats are wholly committed to the comprehensive system. Will he arrange for a debate to take place on secondary education, if not next week then the week after?
May I further ask—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked his question.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will agree that we are absolutely right to give priority also to higher education, to the proposals for polytechnics becoming universities and in giving priority to further education and to the 16-to-18 age group. That is what we will be talking about next week.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have passed, at any rate through this Chamber, an important measure relating to choice and improving standards in schools. I hope that we shall have other opportunities to debate that issue, because I agree strongly with him about the need to ensure diversity of provision for schools.
Mr. Mark Fisher: I join other hon. Members in asking the Leader of the House to act with much greater urgency over the care of cancer patients at the north Staffordshire royal infirmary in my constituency. The confidence of cancer patients who come to that unit from all over north Wales, Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire will have been severely jolted by events today.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that cancer is a traumatic illness with which to deal and that confidence means everything. For that reason, I appeal to him not to delay in asking the Secretary of State to make a statement and to set up a Department of Health inquiry to look into whether other health authorities have similar software problems, whether there is any question of criminal negligence, what the role of the inspectorate was and what the liability situation would have been if the health authority in question had been an opted-out trust. Would it then be expected to pick up the cost of any claims for damages that might arise affecting the hospital? In the
464
interests of those patients, who are suffering enormous trauma today, will the Government act with more urgency in the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point, but I cannot answer his detailed questions. Indeed, I suspect that some of them would take a little time to investigate. I cannot act more quickly than I have already undertaken to do, which is to contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health immediately after business questions.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Could we have a debate on party political broadcasts to discuss misleading claims like the one made in the Labour party broadcast, which claimed that the Financial Times backed Labour policy when it turned out that the broadcast was quoting out of context the words of an FT columnist. Despite the fact that the FT is a pink newspaper, its real views were expressed in a leader that described Labour policies as a cocktail that included a dollop of Government interference, a shake of 1960s sentimentality laced with large quantities of bureaucracy, a fizz of galloping quangos, all topped off with the soothing cream of ineffable blandness. Does my right hon. Friend think that the Labour party will quote that in its next political broadcast?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes some good points in his own words. I shall add only the fact that one of the major issues, which we have debated in the House and which will be debated frequently in the country and the House in the coming months, is the Labour party's high spending and tax policies.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have a debate on the future of the bus industry and perhaps consider setting up an inquiry into Volvo's secret corporate strategy in the United Kingdom to close down parts of British manufacturing industry, transfer production to Sweden and set up screwdriver plants in Scotland? I wish to debate those matters, because many jobs in my constituency are at stake.
Mr. MacGregor: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman could raise that matter in the debate this afternoon.
Mr. John Bowis: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), will my right hon. Friend at least make time for a statement next week on the future of Battersea Park school? Its application to the Secretary of State for Education to become the Battersea technology college is supported by Wandsworth council, the community, the parents and 100 per cent. of the teaching staff, but it is being blocked by that small motivated group, the Battersea Labour party. Would not a statement give that group's representatives in the House an opportunity to explain why they put political ideology before the interests of the children of Battersea?
Mr. MacGregor: I well understand my hon. Friend's point, because I remember dealing with the early stages of that proposal. Although I should like the matter to be debated more fully, my hon. Friend must find other ways, as he has this afternoon, to raise the issue.
Mrs. Llin Golding: Speaking as the only radiographer in the House, may I add my voice

465
to those of other Members for north Staffordshire in emphasising the urgency of the need for a full statement on what has happened in north Staffordshire hospitals? It is essential that every computer and all computer software is looked at in hospitals throughout the country.
It is absolutely essential that patients are confident that they are receiving the recommended dosage. At the north Staffordshire hospital, it was a case of under-dosage, whereas in Exeter the problem seemed to concern over-dosage. I do not want radiographers to shoulder the blame again for what has happened in north Staffordshire, as happened in Exeter. The blame must be put where it rightly belongs and there should be a clinical inquiry, so that other hospitals with the same equipment can be investigated.
Mr. MacGregor: As I have already explained, I have no details of that incident, so it would not be right for me to comment on them. I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's points are also drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate the extremely serious report that has appeared in the Sunday papers—I think that it appeared in the Sunday Express—which is backed up by a document from the Inland Revenue? It says that protection money paid by business men in Northern Ireland to paramilitaries, despite the fact that it is illegal, is being treated as tax expenditure by the Inland Revenue. If that is so, it has serious implications of subsidies by the British taxpayer to paramilitary organisations such as the IRA.
Mr. MacGregor: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is one for the Inland Revenue, but I shall ensure that what she has just said will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Mr. Max Madden: May we have an early debate to discuss two urgent reforms: first, a privacy law to protect all British citizens against intrusive and malicious gutter journalism; secondly, a freedom of information Act to satisfy fully the public's right to know the background of all public policies?
Mr. MacGregor: We have already had a debate on the latter point, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's position clear. On the first point, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that the Government are studying the Press Complaints Commission's first year of operation to see how it can deal with the issue. There will be a review in the summer of the way in which it is operated. I know that much concern is frequently expressed about the issue that I think the hon. Member has in mind. We shall have to see how the matter progresses and consider it in the review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that it has not been possible to include all the hon. Members who wished to participate, but I shall do my best at an early opportunity next week to call those who have not spoken today.

Security (Northern Ireland)
4.5 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): Mr. Speaker, I will, with permission. make a statement about the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
It is my sad duty to report that, since the beginning of this month, 12 people have died in circumstances directly related to the continuation of terrorism in the Province.
The proscribed loyalist terrorist organisation, the Ulster Freedom Fighters, has admitted responsibility for two attacks which have led to the deaths of six people. They include five, two of them teenagers, murdered in a bookmaker's office in Belfast yesterday. Two persons have been arrested in connection with the earlier UFF murder of a taxi driver at his home in north Belfast.
Three persons were killed by an off-duty police officer in the Sinn Fein advice centre on the Falls road. That officer subsequently took his own life. The IRA claimed responsibility for the murder of a bread delivery man in Dungannon and are believed to have been responsible for the attempted murder yesterday near Belleek of a dog warden, who was also a part-time member of the UDR. In this incident, one terrorist was killed. Following it, three persons have been apprehended by the Garda Siochana. In relation to all of these incidents, vigorous follow-up action is in train and will continue.
I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy to ail those who have been so suddenly bereaved. Each of these deaths represents a personal tragedy, but each is also part of a wider tragedy in which the whole community, Protestant and Catholic. Unionist and nationalist, shares. For let there be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland deeply abhor, and want no part of, the wanton destruction perpetrated by that tiny minority who, without democratic, moral or spiritual authority have taken upon themselves the right to decide who should live or die.
As we have seen in recent days, notably in the trade union rally in Belfast last Tuesday and in the unequivocal statement of leading Churchmen, the overwhelming majority of decent people are increasingly making their voice heard and their influence felt. Individuals are coming forward—making use of the confidential telephone and in other ways—to help the police to prevent outrages and to apprehend the criminals. It is vital that this should continue. Terrorists—from whatever side they come—represent no one but themselves. The community has a vital role to play in making them realise that they will never achieve their objectives through violence.
However, a particular responsibility for dealing with terrorism lies with the Government and the security forces. We will not shirk that responsibility. The House will recall the announcement last month of the arrival in Northern Ireland of substantial numbers of additional troops. The level of military reinforcement for the police will continue to be kept under review and further adjustments may be made. We will take whatever action is necessary to bring terrorism to an end, but we will not abandon the underlying principle of our security policy, which is a determination to deal with terrorism under the rule of law.
In accordance with that policy, the police, supported by the armed forces, have achieved, in the last few weeks, further significant successes. A very high proportion of

467
intended attacks are being prevented or aborted. Substantial quantities of arms and explosives—some of it clearly intended for immediate use—have been seized. In these and other situations, important arrests have been made. There will be more seizures and more arrests. The House will recall that almost 400 people were charged with terrorist-related crimes in Northern Ireland last year.
Last week the leaders of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland agreed that, at my invitation, they would meet to consider matters of common concern in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. No matter is of greater shared concern to the people of Northern Ireland and their political leaders than the present security situation. In view of this, and against the background of recent events, the Prime Minister has indicated that he proposes to invite the four leaders to a meeting with both of us to concentrate on that issue. This will ensure that at the highest levels of government we can hear directly from political leaders who understand and represent the views of the people in Northern Ireland who inevitably have borne the brunt of recent events.
The security situation in Northern Ireland is a matter for serious concern; but it is not, and will not be allowed to get, out of control. That is my conviction and that of the Chief Constable. As the Chief Constable said yesterday, a number of new anti-terrorist measures have recently been introduced in Belfast. The House may be assured that, in the discharge of their responsibilities for security in Northern Ireland, the Government and the security forces will take whatever further measures are judged to be necessary and effective.
Mr. Kevin McNamara:: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I express our sympathy to those who have been so grievously bereaved of loved ones or who have been injured during the events of the past week.
This was a week which was to start with so much confidence and hope. There was the visit of the President of the Republic to cross-community groups in Belfast and the great demonstration organised by the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to demonstrate its revulsion at the Tyrone killings. Those hopes have been apparently dashed by yesterday's and Monday's events.
While I have been in Belfast over the past few days, people have been numbed by the atrocities, and their grief amounts to almost complete despair. It is therefore important that we reiterate in this House the statement of the Chief Constable that security is not out of control. There have been considerable successes. Those who would deny that can only give joy to the terrorists and undermine the confidence of the public in the security forces in the difficult task which they are carrying out on behalf of us all on both these islands.
Equally, it must be realised that there is no easy answer to this problem. Short of bringing the whole of Belfast to a complete stop, which, together with the introduction of internment is the terrorists' aim, no security system can guarantee 100 per cent. protection. Even if those events were to come about, there would be no certainty against the maverick killer and the random sectarian assassin.
468
For the Chief Constable and his forces it is a long haul. but in the end it is one that must and will prevail. We must not underestimate or underplay the successes that they have had.
Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the Chief Constable has all the resources of men, women and materials that he feels are necessary for him and his force to carry out their difficult task? Can he tell us that, if any further reinforcements are needed from the Army, they will be immediately provided? As to the Secretary of State's contribution to achieving confidence in the security forces and the rule of law, will he take an early opportunity to make a full statement on the Nelson affair to this House?
The statement a few weeks ago following the right hon. Gentleman's talks with the party leaders—that the talks were basically to be put on ice—caused great disappointment not only in this island but more particularly in Northern Ireland. When the Prime Minister meets him and the leaders of the constitutional parties—and I trust that they will accept the invitation that they have heard this afternoon—will he ask them to reconsider their position with regard to the political talks as well as considering the important problem of security, which he announced as being the main item of discussion? We must bear in mind that the problem of security is tied up with the political problems, that those problems will be with us now and after the election and that the people of Ireland themselves must ultimately resolve them. To that extent, our election, although important for us all, is irrelevant to the present troubles in Northern Ireland.
The dead bear witness to the failure of the political process. Terrorists divide the community by fear. Constitutional politicians can, by their actions, bind those wounds. Those politicians from Northern Ireland have an awesome responsibility. It is for those of us who represent parties on this island to encourage them, and we should encourage them to grasp now the invitation that has been given to them by the Secretary of State to meet the Prime Minister. I trust that they will accept it and that it will be not just to security but also to political matters that they will turn their attention.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy on behalf of the Opposition. I am sure that the whole House appreciates his reminder of the constructive developments which have taken place in Belfast since the start of the year, and which appear in the foreground against the terrible backdrop that I have described. I am grateful to him as well, and I believe that the whole House is, for his reiteration of the Chief Constable's view about the state of affairs in the Province and his recognition that we, like the Chief Constable, are talking about a long haul.
The hon. Gentleman asked me four specific questions. The first related to the resources available to the Chief Constable. Of course, there is continuing dialogue between ourselves and the Royal Ulster Constabulary about the resources necessary for it. I can state with confidence from this Dispatch Box that there is no gap between ourselves and the RUC in terms of such resources.
In terms of reinforcements being immediately available on the military side, I should remind the House that on seven separate occasions in the past 14 months the number of troops in the Province has been augmented in different

469
ways. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is present today, has always been responsive to propositions which I have put to him.
On the Nelson affair and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should make a statement on it, he knows that there is not an inclination in the House to go widely into matters of an intelligence nature and that they are best dealt with in more confidential circumstances. I of course give him an assurance that lessons to be learned from the Nelson affair will be learned and acted upon.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the proposed meeting between the Prime Minister and the leaders of the political parties and expressed his hope that the Prime Minister would ask them to reconsider getting back into talks. Those of us who have been engaged in such conversations in the past have shown mutual respect in recognising the realities with which each party has to deal. I have no doubt that the conversation that we have with the Prime Minster will be wide-ranging and I share with the hon. Gentleman the view that dialogue is all to the good. I salute and thank the leaders of the political parties for having always been ready in the course of the past two years to engage in dialogue both with me and, after appropriate negotiations, with each other.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the great interest in the House in this matter, but we have an important debate in front of us and I shall have, in any event, to put a limit on speeches. I will allow questions to go on until 4.40 pm, when we must move on. I hope that if questions are brief I shall be able to call all hon. Members.
Mr. Julian Amery: I beg my right hon. Friend not to underrate the seriousness of the present situation. The Province is quite close to sliding into civil war between the communities, and if that happens the security forces will find it difficult to hold the ring between them. I ask my right hon. Friend one simple question. Is it a fact that the intelligence community—the security forces—know the identity of the godfathers who are promoting terrorism? If so, what is the valid reason for not interning them?
Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend asked me not to underrate the seriousness of the present situation. Those who have followed recent events have all been fully seized of the seriousness of the situation today. There is always a hazard, as in other matters, that, in terms of a borderline, coolness may be mistaken for complacency. I give my right hon. Friend the absolute assurance that nobody on the Treasury Bench is in the remotest bit complacent about those matters. Equally, it is important that members of the Treasury Bench, like the community in Northern Ireland, should keep their nerve when confronted by such events.
As to the intelligence community and the knowledge of those engaged in terrorism, of course it is the case that a significant number of those engaged in terrorism are known to the security forces. It is also worth remarking that between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of those charged with terrorist crimes have no previous terrorist traces. On the culminating part of my right hon. Friend's question, internment is an option on the statute book available to the Government, but, as my right hon. Friend knows, we do not say more about it than that, since in any case its principal virtue is that of surprise.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Cabinet Committee that supervised and eventually approved the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement asked the chiefs of staff and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to counter the inevitable violence that was inspired by the then Prime Minister, when she used those awful words at Hillsborough, on the signing of the agreement:
"I entered into this agreement because I was not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence."
Six years on from that partial surrender to violence, and in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), does the Secretary of State agree that that fatal signal by the former Prime Minister must be reversed? That must be done in political terms. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that the Prime Minister's invitation to Northern Ireland party leaders might pave the way to the restoration of political and constitutional stability in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman raises matters which go back over six or seven years and which the House has frequently debated. I know the strength of feeling that relates to them, but I would not accept at this Dispatch Box the strictures that the right hon. Gentleman made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) in her discharge of the premiership of this land in relation to Northern Ireland affairs.
As to the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I strongly take the view myself that only good can come of it in terms of a mutuality of understanding of the realities by all those involved.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State reaffirm to the House today that for more than 20 years no local politician has had any responsibility whatsoever for security measures, or how the security forces work, in Northern Ireland? The House took those responsibilities away from the Stormont Government, saying, "We are well able to handle the situation. We will show you how it is to be done." For 20 years, that has been done, and there is the impasse that we have at present. Will the Secretary of State please exonerate Northern Ireland right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who are blamed by other right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for being responsible for something for which they have no responsibility? That must be made plain by the Secretary of State, to keep his credibility with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.
Will the Secretary of State also tell us how many meetings he and his predecessors have had with the Dublin Government? We have been told in the House that, if the Dublin and British Governments met around the table and no longer shouted at each other, they could cure the situation in Northern Ireland. How many meetings has the right hon. Gentleman had, and has he achieved peace, stability or reconciliation? How could he do so when the entire Unionist population were ignored in the signing of the Anglo-Irish diktat?
I welcome the fact that at long last, after 20 years, a British Prime Minister has said, "I will meet the leaders; let us talk about the situation." That is at least one breakthrough. I trust that we shall introduce some realism, and will not accuse people who have no responsibility for security policy.
Mr. Brooke: In a formal sense, what the hon. Gentleman says about the responsibility of Northern Ireland Members, in the context of security, is perfectly correct. They exercise their proper representative right, in the House and elsewhere, in probing in the context of security policy, commenting on it and giving a lead within the community.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of blame. I believe that he may have been alluding in part to the fact that there have been moments when we have not engaged in direct dialogue. All who engaged in last year's talks recognised that the talks were not peace talks per se, but I believe that we all believed that they were constructive in intent, and I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his participation in them.
I meet the Government of the Republic in the intergovernmental conference under the agreement. My guess is that, in one way or another, I have had about a score of meetings in the two and a half years in which I have held my present office. Of course I recognise—it is self-evident, in terms of the overall position—that slow progress is being made in bringing terrorism to an end. I do not make too much of a point of this, because I recognise that it is not of itself a uniquely persuasive fact, but the weapons which Gaddafi provided to the IRA from the mid-1980s onwards have also played a very significant part in the course of the conflict since then.
Finally, let me thank the hon. Gentleman most warmly for what he said about the Prime Minister's initiative.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Let me offer my sympathy to all the families who have been bereaved in the recent past. May I, on behalf of my party leader, respond very positively and very quickly to the proposal for a meeting to be called by the Prime Minister? Our party leader will certainly be there, and we look forward to the dialogue.
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the current difficulties with the whole process is the fact that, if the political process in the north of Ireland is singled out for blame for the failure of the talks, we are diminishing that political process, which must and should be nurtured? Should we not remember that it is the Government here, and every hon. Member in the House, who have had responsibility for affairs in the north of Ireland for the past 20 years, along with the Government and political parties in the Republic? Surely, if we are to secure peace and create a new stability, all those factors must work together.
May I almost demean myself by once again making a plea to the people who are organising violence in the north of Ireland? Will they have the moral and political courage to stand up and tell their followers that they are telling them one great lie, and that nothing will ever be achieved through violence except the suffering that they have heaped on Northern Ireland? Have they the courage to call it off? Have they the courage to end the suffering and violence? If not, the political process, as represented by all of us, will have to solve the problem.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about his party's response to the Prime Minister's initiative. I concur with him about the patience required in the political process of working one with another to solve the problems. With the exception of one problem that is created by the present election, we have, with time, among us and between us, been able to solve
472
each of the problems that we have collectively been set. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the contribution that politics and the political process will make to bringing peace to Northern Ireland. I confirm absolutely that, if the terrorists believe that their objective will be secured by the means that they are using, they are hopelessly and wholly deluded.
Mr. James Kilfedder: May I express sympathy for the relatives of those who have been murdered since the new year began? At this time of heartrending sadness, may I acquaint the Secretary of State with a poem written by a 14-year-old schoolboy who belongs to the legion of youth that has grown up in the shadow of terrorism and never known peace during their lives? The poem is entitled, "A prayer for the children". My young constituent, Neal Coey, declares, in reference to terrorists and terrorism:
"After all these years it has to cease.
For the children's sake, leave us in peace."
I think that everyone in the House will concur with the remarks of that schoolboy.
The Secretary of State is aware that I was excluded by him from the talks that he initiated, despite the fact that I frequently asked to be involved. I understand that I was excluded because it was felt that if I took part it would damage the Conservative opponent in my constituency, who had attacked not only the talks but the Government for initiating them.
Even though I have been excluded from the official invitation from No. 10 Downing street, I declare here and now that I am prepared to talk to any Northern Ireland constitutional politician, to go anywhere and to see anyone in Northern Ireland in the cause of peace and in the search for political progress and stability.
Mr. Brooke: The House will have been moved by the poem that the hon. Gentleman read out after expressing his sympathy to the families who have been bereaved. As a consequence of actions of my own, I have had considerable correspondence from across the Province in recent weeks and a moving feature of it has been the contributions from the very young and the very old, as well as others.
On the hon. Gentleman's non-participation in the recent talks, there was a faint element of a conspiracy theory in his suggestion as to how that might have come about. I endorse absolutely his willingness to make a constructive contribution whenever an opportunity is afforded.
Mr. Alex Carlile: On behalf of my party, I join in the expressions of sympathy for the many families that have been bereaved in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. I welcome the invitation by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to all the constitutional parties to join in talks. Does the Secretary of State agree that ordinary people—non-politicians—in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland hope and expect that all the constitutional parties will join in those talks with genuine determination?
Does he agree that whatever sectarian differences remain, however strong, should disappear into the background, as against the great need to bring to an end the maniacal violence in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that the long-term future of Northern Ireland depends on the rule of law—just laws, fairly enforced?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his sympathy. As for his expression of opinion within the wider polity, I have no doubt that he represents it correctly. There is a great fund of good will within the country towards the people of Northern Ireland and a desire to see matters resolved. I endorse absolutely his concluding remarks on the rule of law.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the moment, through no fault of his, there is a political vacuum, during which violence will continue and most probably increase? In the admirable talks, which we all support, will he ensure that it is made clear to political leaders in the Province that they can at least in part govern their Province, if they want, and that they might, for the sake of us all and for all electorates and communities in Northern Ireland, agree to talk about it sooner rather than later?
Mr. Brooke: As the talks in which we have latterly been engaged have taken place over the past couple of years but the violence stretches back more than 20 years, it would be a mistake to link vacuum and violence too closely. But my hon. Friend is right in believing that the efforts of constitutional politicians to make progress are inherently worth while, as we patently will not reach a conclusion, a settlement and a solution without those talks.
Ms. Clare Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that the response today of those who have spoken for the Unionist tradition has been deeply depressing? They almost said that the present situation is the inevitable product of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is almost to justify it, and they use the present situation to justify their political project of seeking to get rid of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Will he join me in appealing to them to accept that there will be no progress unless they stop harking back to Stormont? Those were days of bigotry, discrimination and misuse of the security forces in Northern Ireland, which helps to explain the current crisis. We shall not progress unless they are willing to seek full equality and justice in Northern Ireland and to accept that the British and Irish Governments must co-operate if we are ever to achieve peace in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Brooke: I must say to the hon. Lady—I do so in the context of what we have been seeking to do among the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland—that I am not sure that questioning, not necessarily in a complimentary manner, the motivation and objectives of other parties is the swiftest way to make progress. The willingness to participate in multistrand talks was wholly evidenced by the participation of the parties last year and their willingness to contemplate taking up the process with the same structures after the election.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I welcome the news of the proposed talks with the Prime Minister, but is my right hon. Friend leaving out of account the one agency which, more than any other, encourages terrorism in Northern Ireland—the constitutional claim of the Irish Republic over Northern Ireland? The IRA claims that it is simply doing by violence what the Irish constitution, according to the Supreme Court, says is a constitutional imperative. Surely the time has come for the British Government officially to approach the Irish Government and say, "Drop this criminal and impossible claim"?
Mr. Brooke: The response of the Irish Government to the Provisional IRA in connection with their constitution is patently a matter for that Government and not for me. I have indicated my attitude to articles 2 and 3 in the context of the matters which we are discussing. One encouraging feature of our progress last year was the absolute willingness of everyone concerned to see everything relevant on the table, including articles 2 and 3 of the constitution.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: It goes without saying that my party regrets every death from terrorism in Northern Ireland, irrespective of whence the violence comes. I am disappointed none the less that the Secretary of State did not have more to say about the security forces and the work they do so courageously in Northern Ireland in fighting terrorism. I am disappointed that he did not acknowledge that the off-duty policeman, to whom he referred in his statement, was mentally disturbed; that was not made clear. To fail to do so tends to besmirch the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Why in his statement did not the Secretary of State mention how he intends to deal with the command and control structure, the higher echelon, within the terrorist organisations, who for years have walked the streets of our towns with impunity, and who have carried out, organised and continue to organise the murders throughout the years? One of the young people who died during the last week was a constituent of mine. Yesterday evening, another, only by great personal courage, managed to save his own life.
The Secretary of State must join us in paying tribute to those who have withstood the violence. He must not try to distract people from those who are guilty of the violence by talking about what local politicians might do. My party leader will be delighted to meet him and the Prime Minister, but we cannot have the House and the public at large being led to believe that those of us who work 18 hours a day, seven days a week, with the vast majority of the population on both sides supporting us, are somehow to blame for what is the responsibility of a handful of self-appointed assassins whom the Government have not yet been able to take out of society.
Mr. Brooke: I welcome particularly the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of terrorism and of the consequences of terrorism, from whatever source it comes. The whole House will welcome the fact that he did that so unreservedly on behalf of his party.
Yesterday in the Province I alluded to the mental condition of the off-duty policeman. I said that that death too was a tragedy which embraced and encompassed us all, and that none of us could know what was in the mind of that young man when he went to the Sinn Fein advice centre.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to pay tribute to the security forces and the unremitting work which is done day in, day out, and night in, night out across the Province. In the heat of the moment earlier in the week, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Government as gutless in not being prepared to pursue internment. He might on reflection agree that all of us involved in Northern Ireland—whether in the security orces, as elected representatives, or even as Ministers—require a fair amount of intestinal fortitude in order to grapple with the problems with which we are faced.

475
As to the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of internment, of which he is a powerful advocate, while I recognise that he thinks that it is a lack of guts which is causing it not to be brought in, other commentators who take a balanced view of the issue think that it might be reckless to embark on it. Both considerations need to be taken into account.
Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree with me that there is no place in any civilised society for terrorism? Does he agree also that 25 deaths in 30 days represent a despicable line of deaths and sorrow in the Province? Does he also accept that many in the law-abiding community within the Province are fed up and frustrated with the statements that we will have security reviews and that there is no quick fix for security. Surely a community which has waited 22 years, begging for peace, cannot be blamed for looking for a quick fix.
Some silly people seek to give credence to the idea that the politicians are to blame. Do they not realise that they place politicians in Northern Ireland in greater danger of their lives than ever before from terrorist thugs? Very few hon. Members understand what it is like for people and their elected representatives to live day after day in the shadow of the bomb and the bullet. When we go out to do our ordinary constituency work, we realise that we may be blown to bits. Instead of listening to so-called platitudes, sympathy, lectures and gimmicks, is it not time that the people of Ulster got their basic British right—peace and the right to live?
Mr. Brooke: The whole House will join me in expressing to the hon. Gentleman sympathy because of outrages and atrocities which have been committed in his constituency and which have caused constituents of his to lose their lives. I recognise the intensity of the experience that the hon. Gentleman has had so often in going into homes which have been bereaved by the loss of the breadwinner or the son of the family, and the feeling that he must have, because, as his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, he does not have direct responsibility for these matters and wonders how he can offer comfort against the security position. I have to reiterate from the Dispatch Box that the rule of law is critical to the eventual triumph over terrorism.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that I have not been able to call all hon. Members who wish to speak. It will be legitimate to raise the subject again on the Army Bill which is to be debated next Thursday.

BILL PRESENTED
  ARMY
  Mr. Secretary King, supported by Mr. Secretary Brooke, Mr. Archie Hamilton, Mr. Alan Clark, Dr. Brian Mawhinney and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle, presented a Bill to provide for members of the Ulster Defence Regiment to cease to be members of that Regiment at the end of June 1992; to provide for the amendment of section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966 in relation to service in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That the Matter of the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grant Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Homeless People (Eviction)
4.48 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have had a request from the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding the impending eviction tomorrow of 90 homeless people from a refuge at Waterloo road ambulance station, which is owned by Hill Samuel, bankers. The company is taking the people to court tomorrow to get an eviction order so that it may throw them on to the street. It is high time the Government had a Minister here to make a statement about stopping the eviction and telling the Government's friends, the bankers Hill Samuel, not to throw those 90 people out on the street.
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard. No doubt he would have raised that matter during business questions if he had been fortunate enough to be called.

Opposition Day
  4TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Industry (Government Policies)
    4.49 pm
    Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move,
    That this House condemns the Government's economic mismanagement which has caused a second recession bringing unacceptably high levels of bankruptcies, closures and job losses in every sector of industry, and the fastest rising unemployment in Europe hitting every occupation, industry and area of the United Kingdom; condemns the Government's neglect of the needs of the unemployed and training generally and the deliberate rundown of regional policies in Scotland, Wales and the regions of England; and calls urgently for policies that take seriously the needs of industry in order to halt the huge decline in investment, to create jobs, and to improve skills.
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. In view of the late start and the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. If hon. Members who are called before 7 o'clock are brief, and if the Front-Bench spokesmen do not take too long, it may be possible to relax the limit.
    Mr. Brown: The motion states that the Government have created and compounded, but are failing to correct, a recession which threatens not only a short-term rise in unemployment but a long-term loss of industrial capacity and strength for Britain. The motion calls for action, with a new skills fund for training so that we can have the best-educated, best-trained and best-skilled work force in Europe. It calls for action on unemployment so that we can halt the fastest rising unemployment in western Europe and for action on investment with a new investment incentive, which we and others including the Confederation of British Industry have advocated, backed by an industry policy for Britain—in contrast to a Government who cannot he trusted with the economy and have no policy for Britain but to repeat the mistakes of the past.
    With 3,000 jobs being lost almost every day, 1,000 businesses going under every week and sales, investment and employment still falling, let us recall the background to the debate. The Chancellor told us that we would have recovery within three months. That was on 11 March 1991, 11 months ago, since when 700,000 men and women have lost their jobs. The Government should apologise for misleading the House and the country.
    The Chancellor then told us that he had seen "vague stirrings" of recovery which no one but he could see. That was on 2 June 1991, more than eight months ago, since when 35,000 companies have gone under. The Government should admit that Ministers were at best economical with the truth about the economy, and they should apologise to all who have suffered.
    Then, the Prime Minister told us that recovery was "coming in weeks". That was on 19 June 1991, more than seven months ago, since when another £500 million in manufacturing capacity has been lost. The Prime Minister
    478
    should apologise to companies and to work forces which have suffered for what one might call, in American terminology, past statements that are no longer operative.
    The Chancellor then told us that he could see the "green shoots of spring". That was on 9 October 1991, five months ago, during which time manufacturing investment has fallen by another few hundred million pounds. The Ministers here today should tell us what they are going to do to make amends to all who have suffered.
    Finally, the Prime Minister told James Naughtie on "The World at One" that the recovery had started "as we speak". That was on 1 January, more than a month ago. He should apologise for a confident statement which has turned out to be a terminological inexactitude at the least. A Government who were wrong in March were wrong in May, June, July, August and December, and they are wrong now. If the Government had the courage and were not running scared, we would be settling these matters not in a Thursday Commons debate but in a Thursday general election. It is because the Government will not admit that they have been wrong all along that they can do nothing to put the economy right.
    What of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Conservative Members—especially those from the north-west where redundancies have risen by 20,000 in the past six months, from the midlands, where unemployment is rising by nearly 10,000 every month, from the south, where unemployment has shot up by 20,000, and from Scotland and Wales— will be surprised that, not to be outdone, the Secretary of State issued a press release from Conservative central office in the autumn when addressing what is called the World Economic Forum at the Hyde Park hotel.
    What did the Secretary of State say? Did he say that the Conservatives accepted responsibility for the British recession? No. The headline of his press release of 3 September 1991 was "Conservatives lead the way to world recovery". I could understand the headline, "Conservatives led the way to British recession" but not "Conservatives lead the way to world recovery". They are inventing a British recovery that does not yet exist, all because they will not accept responsibility for a British recession which is of their own making. Because they will not accept responsibility for the problem, they are disabled from taking the action necessary for its solution.
    The facts are—
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is fast becoming the Ron Glum of British politics? I believe that he has never managed a company or been in a position in which he needed to motivate workers. The sort of talk that we hear from him, which is wholly contrary to what we hear from the CBI and others, will progressively talk down British industry. Is that what the Labour party is all about?
    Mr. Brown: It is not I who am talking down British industry—it is British industry which wants a Government who will tell the truth about the British economy.
    These are the facts. Exactly a year after the Chancellor predicted that we would have a recovery by the middle of 1991, eight months after the Prime Minister told us that a recovery would start in a few weeks, and months after the Chancellor detected the green shoots of spring, employment is still falling by more than 30,000 a month, manufacturing employment is still falling by nearly 20,000

    479
    a month, sales are falling, industrial production is falling and, worst of all, the key to our future—investment—is falling this month and next month and, if the hon. Gentleman listens to the CBI, he will learn that unless the Government take action, it is likely to fall during the year.
    Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman obviously agrees that it is in manufacturing engineering that the greatest problems have arisen as a result of the recession. A company with which I am involved has lost a large part of its turnover in the past year, largely as a result of the fact that its manufacturing was done for American companies which, because of the recession in America, have taken the manufacturing back to America, thus depriving this country of it. Is it not because there is a world recession and, in particular, a recession in America, that we have the problems that we have now? It is my experience that there has been a recovery in the past couple of months and, in the company with which I am involved, it is British-led. It is British workmanship which is leading us out of it.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the Prime Minister has been trying to make for a few days. [Interruption.] Let us deal with that point. He is saying that the problems in Britain arose not because of anything intrinsic to the British economy but because of a world recession. Why, if these problems are not intrinsic to Britain but part of a world recession, has Britain been bottom of the league of European Community countries for output, investment, employment and growth in 1991? Why, even in 1992, is the latest forecast that we shall be 12 out of 12 for employment in Europe?
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: As the hon. Gentleman is so dissatisfied with industrial performance in this country, will he cast his mind back to the balmy days when Labour was last in power, when British Airways was rated below Aeroflot by its customers, when British Leyland was the butt of international jokes and when British Steel was the world's largest loss maker? Bearing in mind the fact that he has never manufactured anything except dodgy policies, how does he expect to do better?
    Mr. Brown: And when we had a surplus in manufacturing trade with the rest of the world. The hon. Gentleman, who repeats the same question every time, would do well to read the manifesto that he issued to the electors of Amber Valley, which said that the Conservative Government had put an end to fast-rising prices once and for all—just before inflation doubled.
    Let us deal with the world recession. When Conservative Members claim—as the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) has just done—that this is a world recession in which all countries are somehow suffering equally and try to tell us that it is not a British recession which is the fault of Ministers but a world recession which has nothing to do with them, let us be clear about the facts.
    With the European Community as a whole growing by 1·4 per cent. in 1991 and expected to grow 2·1 per cent. in 1992, there is no falling output and therefore no recession in the EC as a whole last year or forecast for this year. With the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as a whole growing by 1·2
    480
    per cent. in 1991 and expected to grow 2·2 per cent. in 1992, there is not falling output and, therefore, no recession in the OECD countries as a whole last year or forecast for this year. When the G7 as a whole—
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has been complaining for the last few moments about a lack of investment. How on earth would British industry be helped by investment policy if his party got the opportunity to introduce its 9 per cent. tax on savings income? How would that help investment?
    Mr. Brown: The policies that we advocate for manufacturing industry have been welcomed by the CBI, and are similar to the policies—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are determined that I shall not be heard.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The debate has been going on for only a few minutes. I suggest that hon. Members on both sides of the House sit back and listen.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    I can tell the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that Budget submissions from the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation, and many chambers of commerce and other industrial organisations, advocate a new investment incentive for British industry, to get the economy moving out of recession.
    It is remarkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell rose—
    Mr. Brown: I shall not give way again.
    It is remarkable that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not rule out personal tax cuts or cuts in inheritance tax in the Budget, yet even before he began his Budget discussions, he specifically ruled out, in front of the National Economic Development Council, the one measure about which there is a consensus in industry—a new industrial investment incentive to get the economy moving again.
    If Conservative Members would stop being completely embattled by their ideology, they might be able to learn from British industry.
    Mr. James Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and that is the last time.
    Mr. Hill: I have listened intently to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the OECD reports. I can give him a practical example, if he wishes. My daughter and her husband run a company just outside Bordeaux, in France. In the past few months, the recession there has been far worse than they have ever experienced before. One should take in some of those practical facts instead of listening only to statistics.
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make such points, perhaps he should go round the regions and listen to British industry. Perhaps he should read the report about machine tool orders—new orders are 47 per cent.

    481
    down over a year. That is the result not of a world recession but of mistakes that have been made here in Britain.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brown: I shall not give way again.
    Let us be absolutely clear: business investment last year did not fall in the EC as a whole in the G7 countries or in the OECD countries, but it fell in Britain. Employment did not fall in the EC, the G7 countries or in the OECD countries as a whole either, but it fell in Britain.
    The Prime Minister tells us that Japan is in recession. Let me tell him, and Conservative Members, that, according to the latest report, in 1992 investment there is expected to rise by 2·4 per cent., employment by 1·3 per cent., and output by 2·4 per cent. That comes on top of a position in which, last year, business investment rose by 7 per cent., employment by 2 per cent., and output by 4·5 per cent. There is no recession in Japan, where the economy is growing, not declining, and unemployment is at 2·2 per cent., compared with 9 per cent. here.
    Where is the world recession when the Prime Minister needs it? There is no world recession. Surely the only conclusion—[Interruption.] Let us see what the IMF says. It says that the world economy grew by just 1 per cent. in 1991, but that it will grow by 2·8 per cent. this year. There is no fall in output in the world as a whole, and there is no recession. Where is the world recession? There is none. The only conclusion must be that the Prime Minister is condemned as—in his own words—economically illiterate.
    Sir William Clark: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no world recession. Has he seen the statistics coming out of the United States? There is a recession there.
    Secondly—[Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) finished? Secondly, if our economy
    Mr. Brown: We had better examine the overall level of investment in the economy. At the beginning of 1990, manufacturing investment was £12 billion on a year-to-year basis. It is now £8 billion—that represents a 35 per cent. fall in manufacturing investment. If that is not evidence of a recession that needs correcting by Government action, I do not know what is.
    This is a recession initiated in Britain by Ministers, and prolonged in Britain because of their mistakes. It is a recession which, thanks to the Government, still shows no sign of ending.
    What about the future? The CBI says that, unless action is taken, investment will continue to fall in 1992, and that, on the eve of the single market, investment will have fallen by 35 per cent. over two years. What does that mean in practice? It means that this year the Germans will invest about £3,000 for each manufacturing worker, and the Italians and the Americans about the same. The Dutch will invest more than £6,000. Yet no more than £1,800 will be invested in each British manufacturing worker. Britain has more to do, because it has done less over the past 13 years, yet Britain will invest 50 per cent. less than the Germans and the French, and less than half what the Japanese and some other countries invest. And the Prime Minister says that we have had a manufacturing renaissance in this country.
    482
    The Chancellor's autumn statement, in November, said that output would grow by 2·5 per cent. Now the consensus is that it will grow by about half that rate in 1992. He said that investment would increase by 1·2 per cent. The consensus now—he has admitted it himself—is that those figures were over-optimistic, and that, according to the latest forecast, investment could fall. The autumn statement said that manufacturing production would rise by 2 per cent. The consensus now is that it will stagnate over the coming months.
    Hon. Members will recall the night when a lady from Hampshire was told by Michael Fish, the weather forecaster, that there would be no hurricane. Michael Fish is remembered for one colossal failure of prediction, but the Chancellor's record is rather different. The right hon. Gentleman's record is remarkable for its consistency—he gets it wrong every time. The one thing that we can say about the Chancellor is that he is utterly reliable—he will always let you down.
    How can we trust the judgment of people who tell us that there will not be a recession, and then, when it is upon us, that there is no recession? How can we trust the judgment of men who tell us successively that the recession will have ended by spring 1991, June 1991, autumn 1991, December 1991 and January 1992, and who are even now telling us that it is all over, when the evidence is against them?
    How can we trust the Government's judgment, when they are the very same people who in 1988 told us that they had created an economic miracle? They are the people who encouraged others to act as if they had no worries about borrowing, and who failed to warn about the risks — even, in some cases, to family homes— of debt, recession and high interest rates. Even as things got worse for millions of people, those men denied that there was a problem.
    How can we trust the judgement of men who told us that their 1988 Budget, which gave £4 billion to the very rich, would increase output, growth, productivity, incentives, and even charitable giving? All of those have fallen as a result of Government mistakes in the past three years.
    The Government are the people who have the audacity to put up billboards around Britain, in a campaign built round one central theme—that one cannot trust Labour. It is not the Labour party which has misled the country and cannot be trusted; it is the Conservative Government who have forfeited any trust.
    What is leading the recovery that we hear about from the Prime Minister? Is it housing-led, as the Chancellor promised? The Council of Mortgage Lenders has just said that there is no housing recovery. Is it retail-led, when companies such as John Lewis say that they are dealing with the worst conditions for 30 years? Is it construction-led, as the Chancellor hinted that it would be, when the construction industry says that it will not recover until 1993?
    Is the recovery consumer-led, as the Chancellor promised at one stage, when in January, trade sales figures are stagnating and in some cases falling? Is it industry-led? Is it manufacturing-led? Is it investment-led? No. The truth is that if there is a recovery, it is not investment-led or industry-led; it is a Conservative central office-led recovery.

    483
    It is a recovery led by press releases, buoyed up by mistaken forecasts and advancing on the crest of a wave of pre-election hype. It is a recovery led not by car makers or aeroplane makers, but simply by phrase makers. The only companies talking it up are the Conservative advertising companies. This recovery leaves hundreds more companies going under, thousands more family homes repossessed and hundreds of thousands more unemployed. Is it an ICI-led recovery? Is it a GEC-led recovery? Is it a Wimpey-led recovery, or is it simply a Saatchi and Saatchi-led recovery?
    It is a recovery dreamed up over a working breakfast and sketched by the Saatchi image makers. It is a recovery that begins and ends as advertising copy. It is a recovery that reaches as far as the nation's billboards, but not to its high streets, jobcentres or dole queues. It is a recovery led not by commercial activity, but simply by commercials. It is a recovery that has created a few jobs in a small section of Smith square in the press relations department, of Conservative central office, but none in any offices or factories throughout the country. After 13 years in government, the Conservatives are no longer asking how they can achieve better growth, better investment or better employment prospects. Their highest aspiration in government is simply better advertising in the run-up to the election.
    What does Saatchi and Saatchi, whose good news machine proclaims that the economy is prospering, actually say about the real state of the economy to the people who matter to it most—the shareholders? Does Saatchi and Saatchi report to its shareholders that the Conservative Government are performing well, that Britain is best off with the Tories and that the recession is merely a blip?
    Let me read the annual report of Saatchi and Saatchi. The chief executive says—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman would do well to listen—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear.
    Let me read the chief executive's report. He says:
    "I do not expect trading to be any easier this year than last. The length of and the severity of the current recession are unresolved."
    That is Saatchi and Saatchi reporting to the people who matter to it—the shareholders. It says that there is recession, that it is severe and that its length is unresolved. That is bad news indeed, but presumably it is, in the PrimeMinister's words, just another prophet of doom and just dismal Jimmy Saatchi at it again.
    Not even the messengers believe the message. What does the other Tory propaganda machine — the Daily Mail—tell us about the recession and recovery? Let us look at its headlines in the past few months, which include "Britain bounces back", and
    "Small firms defy the prophets of doom".
    What did the owners of the Daily Mail report when clear thinking was needed because their own directors' fees, dividends and salaries were at stake? Did they say, "Britain doing well, likely to do better, prospering and nothing to worry about"?
    I quote from the report of Associated Newspapers plc:
    484
    "Such limited signs of recovery in the United Kingdom economy as are visible remain patchy and do not give us any grounds for optimism … The first months of the financial year have not indicated any recovery from recession."
    The owners tell millions of their readers the good news from the Tory party while admitting in private, for all practical purposes of their own, that the news is bad.
    What about the Daily Express? In November, its headlines said:
    "At last we have lift off. Economy up."
    Surely that encourages couples to bid up for their homes and encourages families to think that their debt problems are over. What does Lord Stevens tell his shareholders? He does not speak about signs of lift-off at the annual general meeting. He stated specifically:
    "Contrary to the optimism of Government Ministers that the economy is turning, there are so far few tangible signs the advertising volumes … are picking up."
    The people who ask us to believe in the Tory record do not even believe it themselves.
    What about The Sun? It uses headlines such as, "It's looking good", "Britain on the way" and "We're OK in the UK". If then says: "It that's depression let's have more of it."
    But what does News International plc report to its shareholders in its most recent annual report on 9 September? It said:
    "Economic conditions as they affect the media are not expected to improve during the next year."
    Its best assessment of our economic prospects to the people who matter to it is that there will be no recovery for a year—until next September. Yet News International is happy to put the interests of the Tory party before the interests of its readers.
    Mr. Tim Bell is always ready to tell the good news on billboards, in full-page advertisements and in party political broadcasts. What did his company say about the real world of business at Christmas, only a month ago? It said that the company was having to make a last, desperate attempt to make any profits this year.
    Here we have it. The entire Conservative propaganda machine—central office, Saatchi and Saatchi, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and Tim Bell—the whole ministry of truth, when pressed, makes a sharp distinction between the message it puts to voters and the one that goes back to the directors and shareholders when serious commercial interests are at stake. There is one truth for the public, whom the Conservative propaganda machine is prepared to deceive, and another truth for the directors, the shareholders and the City audience on which it depends.
    The public are being treated with contempt by people who know exactly what is wrong with the economy. They admit it to themselves every day and then proclaim a completely different story—a wholly different account—to the public in multi-million-pound Conservative advertising campaigns. Perhaps that deceit, that self-interest and that hypocrisy are nothing remarkable, but simply the prerogative of the Tory press throughout the ages. Saatchi and Saatchi say, "You can't trust Labour." All the evidence is that one cannot trust what Saatchi and Saatchi says about Labour, about the economy or about the Tory party.
    Even within the Conservative party, I came across a document entitled "The Transformation of Britain", which was described as the new mass market magazine and as the party's flagship publication. It has an introduction

    485
    by the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), the Conservative party chairman. The third section entitled
    "The 1990s" looks at
    "the fruits of success in the lives of British people".
    It is not so much the record of the Tory transformation of Britain as an attempt at the transformation of the Tory record. There is only one edition so far, but in 100 glossy pages, the magazine manages only three advertisements. One is for a Tory joke book, one is from Selfridges and one is from Arthur Andersen which says:
    "UK plc could be in better shape."
    This is the Conservative party's own publication.
    "It's time to get Fit again. Getting fit is hard work… Getting back in trim will not be easy for UK business. The exercise will be painful. Very often it means nothing less than a total restructuring."
    The Tory party's house magazine is now telling us that, after 13 years of this Government—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have read the motion carefully. Could you help the House and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)? Will it be in order for us to discuss the Labour party's proposed policies, if it came to office? We have listened to the hon. Gentleman for 32 minutes, but we have yet to hear a single policy proposal from the Labour party.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The motion is wide. If the hon. Gentleman is called, I shall be pleased to hear what he has to say.
    Mr. Brown: Conservative Members do not like what they are hearing about the fable.
    Do Ministers themselves believe the good news? What does the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry say when pressed in cross-examination? In an interview in the magazine The Engineer which has just been drawn to my attention, does he share the confidence of the Saatchi and Saatchi advertisement? Does he repeat the pre-election talk of a transformation of Britain? What did he say in that interview a few months ago? What did he say when pressed on the problems of British industry? Did he talk about a blip or say that the recovery was just about to happen? He said:
    "The problems are deep rooted and complex and only the most fundamental cultural, academic and educational changes are going to bring about reform. I think that message is getting over."
    It certainly is. When the messengers do not believe the message, when the Conservatives' party propaganda cannot sustain it and when Ministers cannot hold the line, can we trust the Government? Can there be any greater deception to the millions of victims of this recession —the small business men and women, the unemployed, shopkeepers and people in manufacturing? They need to be told the truth.
    The Government are conjuring up a recovery that does not exist with a propaganda machine that does not even believe in it, and all for no other reason than that they are about to be called to account in a general election. A Government who treat the electorate with contempt will be treated with contempt by the British electorate.
    The problem, however, is that we are talking about the difficulties not of the past three years, but of the past 13 years. In that time, we have consistently argued for the creation of a modern manufacturing strength, training, investment in skills, technology and training, and investment in the regions. What has happened under the
    486
    Government? Let us look at what has happened in the past 13 years in terms of manufacturing growth. It has risen by 26 per cent. in Germany, 33 per cent. in America and 60 per cent. in Japan, but it has risen by only 4·9 per cent. in Britain.
    What about investment in manufacturing?
    Sir William Clark rose—
    Mr. Brown: I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman a few minutes ago and I answered his question.
    In the past twelve and a half years, investment in manufacturing has grown in real terms by 47 per cent. in Germany, by 52 per cent. in France, by 73 per cent. in Italy and by more than 100 per cent. in the Netherlands. However, it has fallen in Britain under this Government. We have the worst record for growth in manufacturing of all the OECD countries, with the exception of Greece. We have the worst record for manufacturing investment bar none. That is the Government's record at the end of 13 years in which they had the unparalleled advantage and the once-for-all windfall of North sea oil. However, we are now investing less and hardly producing any more in our manufacturing industry than we did in 1979.
    This is a Government who boasted that they created an economic miracle. No wonder they are going to the country relying not on their achievements, but only on their advertising. The last thing they want to talk about is their record. They will not act on falling investment. They have refused to listen to the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations that have demanded a change in policy. While other countries are making proper preparations for 1992, the Government have done absolutely nothing to improve investment in the regions in particular.
    We cannot trust the Government to take the necessary action and nowhere is that more true than in their attitude to our regions. Nowhere has the neglect of British industry and its future prospects been more obvious than in the Government's attitude to regional policy. That policy has been subject to modernisation in other countries, but it has been virtually abandoned in Britain.
    Nowhere is that more true than in the Government's attitude to RECHAR and our mining communities. The reason we have not reached an agreement in Europe is that the Ministers concerned are more anxious to wage ideological war with the Commission than to secure the funds that will create jobs, improve training and help small businesses grow in many of our rundown mining communities.
    The document from the Department of the Environment says that the Government's case is no longer viable and that it represents an own goal. It states that the position must change. Jobs had been lost and help to small businesses had already been delayed when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House of Lords Select Committee:
    "The problem is a metaphysical one. It is a metaphysical dispute about additionality".
    Is it a metaphysical problem when Ministers put a miner of 47 on the dole with no prospect of ever working again and block the very measures that would help him?
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has ever asked his former right hon. Friend, Commissioner Millan, who was

    487
    Secretary of State for Scotland, to operate the same rules as we do? Is Mr. Millan quite content to hand over that money to create those jobs or is the hon. Gentleman trying his best to dissuade him from doing so now?
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the rules on regional policy were changed in 1988.
    Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in his document. He said that the current arrangement is not transparent, that it is not additional, that it does not satisfy the objectives of grant recipients, and that it is not neutral. He actually admitted that the political criticism had not been met and that Britain was virtually isolated in the Community. That is what the Secretary of State for the Environment said from within the Government of which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is a member.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman failed to read out the sentence that says that none of those comments refer to RECHAR.
    Mr. Brown: The precise reading of that document is:
    "This leaves the RECHAR programmes and other future ERDF receipts in jeopardy".
    The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not talk to the Secretary of State for the Environment, and he does not even read the documents that come before him.
    Is it a metaphysical problem when miners and their families who have travelled throughout Scotland and the north, and from Scotland to Yorkshire and further south and are faced not just with the prospect of unemployment, but of no further employment opportunities because the RECHAR money is being blocked? They are communities not of metaphysicians, but of miners and former miners laid low by closures and devastated by unemployment. Now, because of Government intransigence, they are deprived even of hope, at least until the Labour Government come to power.
    How can we trust the Government to help mining communities or any of the hard-hit regions in Scotland, Wales and England, when they have cut regional assistance, axed regional development grants and will not back European regional measures? Our regional policy is now being presided over by a Minister who said in a pamphlet that he regards regional policy as one of the phoney activities of Government.
    Nothing in the record of the Government is more damning than their failure to act on unemployment. Unemployment is now higher here than in all the Community countries except Ireland and Greece. It is still rising faster here than anywhere in Europe. That is on top of a doubling in unemployment since 1979.
    What about employment action, which is a Government creation? There are only 263 people on employment action schemes in Scotland, which is an average of only three people in every constituency where employment action operates. Two years after the Government were first warned of the recession and 20 months after unemployment started to rise, employment action is offering places to 5,800 people in Britain. That is an average of nine people for constituencies which, in some cases, have more than 10,000 people unemployed. We now know that the Government have even raided the unemployment training budget in the past few days.
    488
    How can we trust a Government who say that they will help the unemployed, when the best that they can do for the 2·5 million unemployed is to create an average of only nine employment action places for every man and woman even in some of the hardest-hit constituencies in the country? No Government have the right to treat unemployed men and women with such contempt by doing virtually nothing to assist them. No Government have the right to condemn thousands of teenagers to unemployment leaving hundreds of them without training or benefits.
    In the past 13 years, the Government have created neither economic efficiency nor social justice. They will be remembered as the Government who dissipated the oil wealth, left us with more unemployment, more poverty, more homelessness. They promised an economic miracle, but they have left Great Britain investing less and producing not much more from our manufacturing industries than in 1979.
    The Government know that they cannot go to the country on their record. They are relying on a huge public relations offensive to conceal that record. But even their own public relations companies know that they cannot escape their record. They have undermined manufacturing by cutting investment in our future. They do not deserve another five years to do more damage. They have undermined public services as well as our industries. This Government must not have another five years to do even more damage. They have forced unemployment up by 1·5 million in 13 years and then they abandoned the unemployed even though they have had the North sea oil. They do not deserve another five years to throw more people out of work.
    Britain has suffered enough. The Government do not deserve re-election. Labour will govern in their place.
    5.29 pm
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its success in bringing down inflation; recognises the importance of maintaining the fight against inflation to maintain competitiveness; acknowledges the success of British manufacturing industry in reaching record figures for exports despite depressed world markets; rejects the high tax; high spending policies of the Opposition which City forecasters predict would cause an increase in interest rates and inflation and would be an impediment to recovery; condemns their anti-industry policies of nationalisation, state control, a national minimum wage, renewed union power and unqualified support for the social charter which would have damaging consequences for jobs and industry; and notes that all these policies have been rejected by business.".
    Once again, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) devoted the bulk of his speech to his choice selection of gloomy statistics, gloomier forecasts and the gloomiest quotes he can find. He overdoses on gloom. He cannot get enough of it. I fear that eventually it will consume him entirely and he will end up like one of those unfortunate old men in Oxford street between the sandwich boards proclaiming, "The end is nigh". [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."]
    Several Hon. Members rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us hear the Minister.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman's speech contained not a mention of Britain's success in increasing our share of world markets for the third year running. It contained not a word about our success in exports, nothing about Britain's record low level of strikes and nothing about British industry's productivity achievements. He clearly believes that he can talk Labour support up by talking the economy down.
    A key part of the process of economic recovery is the restoration of confidence and the revival of optimism. Either the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East does not recognise that, or he does not care and wants to delay and defer recovery. Fortunately, his words are unlikely to have much impact on the course of the recession, but if his party's policies were ever implemented, they would almost without exception aggravate the recession and abort recovery. Labour's plans to raise taxes would be particularly damaging. Apart from their long-term impact on incentives, their short-term effect on demand would be disastrous.
    That danger was pointed out by Hamish McRae, no Tory hack, in a lucid article in The Independent, which is not a Tory rag. He took into account only Labour's plans to increase the top rate to 50 per cent. and to abolish the National Insurance ceiling. He wrote:
    "Labour's tax proposals would exacerbate current economic problems … [They] would be an economic experiment at the wrong time. At worst, it would lead to a sharp rise in personal bankruptcies. Further, by tipping house prices into a new decline, it would hit consumption and make recovery more difficult. The changes projected … by the Labour party … would mean those affected would face the sharpest ever peacetime tax increase."
    He concluded:
    "Dare Labour risk kicking an economy that is already down?"
    On top of that, Labour proposes to tax savings— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Richard Tracey rose—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Lilley: How Labour Members can claim to favour investment while penalising savings baffles me, and I suspect—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down and listen to the Minister.
    Mr. Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend also remember that when, a couple of years ago, the Leader of the Opposition was asked what Labour would do to control inflation, he said, "To cut a long story short, we don't know."
    Mr. Lilley: I remember that extremely well. That interview has probably never been broadcast. I hope that it will receive an airing soon.
    It is not just domestic savings and domestic investment that the Labour party's policies would jeopardise. Inward investment would also be at risk from the xenophobia of the Labour movement. The TUC conference, by an overwhelming majority, condemned inward investment as alien. I have, since then, challenged the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East five times to dissociate the Labour party from that attitude. On each occasion, he has refused to disown the views of his party's paymaster. Now that some TUC leaders have backed off from that policy, surely he can do likewise. I give him the opportunity now to
    490
    dissociate the Labour party from the attack on inward investment. How extraordinary— [Interruption.] Either he still believes—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an intolerable House this afternoon. The Minister will give way when he wants to give way.
    Mr. Lilley: I wish to give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, but he is uncharacteristically rooted to his seat. He refuses to withdraw his support for trade union opposition to investment into this country. The Americans have a saying, that an honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought. The hon. Gentleman carries that to extremes. He stays bought even when he is being sold out. As I say, the trade unions have themselves withdrawn now from that position. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman carries integrity to the point of ineptitude.
    The three conditions of sustained recovery are clear. They are low inflation, reduced interest rates and renewed confidence. Labour's policies are tailormade to undermine all three of those conditions. The Government have brought inflation down to a little more than half the lowest level ever achieved by the last Labour Government, and it is set to fall below the German level for the first time in a generation.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the need to reduce interest rates. With the highest level of real interest rates that we have ever had for such a long time, our balance of payments is in deficit. If he wants to reduce interest rates, how would he cure the balance of payments deficit?
    Mr. Lilley: The right hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the exchange rate mechanism, so I hope that he believes that we should not recklessly reduce them. We must maintain interest rates at levels compatible with our membership of it.
    But I am dealing with inflation, and Labour's policies would send inflation soaring again by their extravagant spending programmes; by the higher taxes and borrowing that would be needed to finance those programmes; by the prospect of monetary relaxation; by fears of devaluation with which every Labour Government have been associated; by their minimum wage policy, which would jack up the whole pay structure; and by strengthening trade union power, which would ratchet it up further—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East might learn a little if he would desist from the conversation that is progressing on the Opposition Front Bench, although we appreciate that he is not in the learning mode.
    We have got interest rates down by 4·5 points from their peak to below the average of the last decade, and within a whisker of continental levels. City forecasters are almost unanimous that a Labour Government would be obliged to put interest rates up, both to counteract the inflationary consequences of their own policies and to maintain the pound in the exchange rate mechanism before or after devaluation. The commentators differ only about how much Labour would have to raise interest rates.
    The Nomura Research Institute, for example, says:

    491
    "It seems clear that the markets would exact a price in the form of a significant interest rate premium upon the election of a Labour government. Labour would have to assuage the market's doubts by being ready to raise interest rates. An immediate rise in interest rates of 2 per cent. might have the required effect."
    Credit Lyonnais is less optimistic:
    "Our simulations suggest that the higher inflation, borrowing and balance of payments deficit under Labour would push short-term interest rates sharply higher to defend the pound—by up to four percentage points by the end of four years. This raises the possibility of a mini U-turn—similar to that by the Socialist government in France in the early '80s." Of nine major research houses which have analysed the impact of a Labour Government, every one forecasts higher interest rates."
    So I have a simple question for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. If, as virtually every commentator expects, there was a run on the pound following a Labour election, would Labour put up interest rates to maintain present parity, or would it devalue? Every Labour Government have had to face that choice. If the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East cannot answer that question, I shall give him a clue. Every Labour Government have done both. They have first put up interest rates and then bottled out and devalued. The fact that the hon. Gentleman refuses to say what he would do suggests that a future Labour Government would probably follow the same path.
    Recovery would be aborted not only by Labour's macro policies. Even the policies which Labour claims would boost activity would defer it—for example, its proposed temporary increase in tax allowances for investment in what it describes as "new technology" and "genuine innovation". I presume that business men would have to go to the Inland Revenue before making investments to obtain confirmation from their friendly local neighbourhood tax man that their investment met the definition of "new technology" and "genuine innovation" before they could go ahead with the investment, with the prospect of receiving higher allowances.
    Imagine the Inland Revenue having to vet every item of investment in plant and machinery —some £40 billion a year—to decide whether each piece of equipment is sufficiently technically sophisticated. It is hard to imagine anything more guaranteed to defer or delay virtually every investment, but that is Labour's policy.
    Labour's nationalisation plans would have a particularly adverse effect on parts of the economy that are now buoyant. Privatisation has liberated water, electricity and telecommunications from the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement. As a result, all those industries have massive investment programmes. The water industry plans to invest £30 billion over the next few years, and its suppliers expect this to be a record year.
    Labour could not possibly afford to invest £10 billion of taxpayers' money in renationalising the water companies without savagely cutting investment in water. It plans to renationalise the national grid for electricity and use it to control the whole generating and distribution industry. That would not merely depress spending on transmission, which is currently buoyant, but would choke off much of the huge private investment planned in conventional generating plant, orders for which amount to as much in capacity as the whole of our nuclear industry.
    Mr. Donald Dewar: If the Secretary of State is so keen on liberated water with all its virtues, why does he imagine that it has not happened in Scotland?
    Mr. Lilley: Why does the hon. Gentleman not tell us where the Labour party would get the £10 billion needed to renationalise water in England and Wales? How would Labour maintain the investment programme if it did that?
    Labour's policies would certainly prolong and deepen the recession. It is a mistake to assume that recoveries come about only in response to artificial fiscal stimuli. The recoveries in 1981 and 1975 did not. The retrenchment that causes a recession eventually brings about conditions that make recovery possible. Destocking runs its course and orders resume; increased saving is used to pay off debts; balance sheets are strengthened; savings flow back into capital markets; and stock markets then rise, as has happened recently, cutting the cost of capital. Companies improve their competitiveness in world markets and, as output grows again, it generates the income that provides increased demand. However, that will happen only as confidence is restored, and confidence at home depends crucially on continued success in the battle against inflation. We are winning that battle.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one reason why industry is hesitating about investment is because it has seen the opinion polls and the fact that there is a prospect of Labour forming a British Government? Industry knows that Labour Members have absolutely no experience of business, and industry in my constituency is horrified at the prospect of them gaining power. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so in touch are Labour Members with manufacturing industry, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) came to launch Labour's "Made in Britain" campaign in the West Midlands by going to an excellent company in Cannock that distributes American capital equipment.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Confidence depends on another Conservative election victory, which is why markets rise when we are ahead in the polls and fall when our support flags.
    Despite what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East says, the recession is not exclusive to this country. It has happened in many other countries, including America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Finland and Sweden, and it is spreading elsewhere. Confidence in the world economy is crucial.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall give way in a moment.
    That is why the Government attach so much importance to a speedy and successful conclusion to the GATT Uruguay round. Success will boost confidence and stimulate trade. Failure would destroy confidence and revive protectionism. In the 1930s, protectionism turned a severe recession into a prolonged slump. Labour Front-Bench Members never mention that issue, and the reasons are clear—they do not understand its importance and they have always been hostile to free trade.
    Mr. Bell: The Secretary of State gave a list of countries experiencing recession, but he did not mention Japan. Is Japan experiencing a recession or not?
    Mr. Lilley: The Japanese message delivered at Davos, along with that of many other countries, showed that it is clearly experiencing a very marked slowdown in its economy. If any Labour Member pretends that recession is not affecting other economies in the world, he is living in a dream world.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: May I pursue that point a little further? The other day, the Prime Minister specifically said that Japan was in recession. Does not the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Lilley: I shall say quite clearly that that economy, like many others, is slowing down and experiencing the effects of a world recession.
    It is always difficult to be sure, until several months after the event, when a recession has given way to recovery. The question is not which precise month the recovery did or will begin but how we can ensure that growth is sustainable, soundly based and enduring. We are set to ensure that. The outlook for this decade is even better than for the 1980s. It remains tough for many businesses, and no one is more aware of that than I am, as I am in constant contact with businesses from every sector and every region of the economy.
    I know that demand remains weak, but industry is fundamentally strong—much stronger than it was a decade ago, when we were emerging from the last world recession—because of the profound changes that we introduced during the 1980s. We have improved industrial relations, restored incentives, removed burdens and released enterprise. As a result, we have started to reverse a century of relative decline. The 1980s were the first decade in peacetime, for more than a century, when our economy grew faster than that of France or Germany.
    The changes have been greatest in our weakest areas. For example, manufacturing productivity grew faster than not only our main European competitors but any other major industrial country, including Japan. Our industrial relations have been transformed, from among the worst in the world to among the best in living memory.
    The competitiveness of our industry is demonstrated by its success in world markets. During the past 10 years, the volume of our exports of manufactured goods has risen more rapidly than those of France, Germany, the United States and even Japan. The ultimate credit for those achievements goes to the business men and women and those they employ. Our policies merely open the opportunities, restore incentives and remove obstacles. The businesses have seized the opportunities, responded to the incentives, created the wealth and won the markets.
    Why cannot the Labour party ever bring itself to acknowledge the achievements of British industry? Can any Labour spokesman show me a single speech that he has made paying tribute, not to the Government, but to British industry and the successes that it has chalked up in recent years?
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is it not surprising that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) spoke for more than 40 minutes on a subject chosen by the
    494
    Opposition but did not say one word of how Labour party policy would improve this country's industrial performance?
    Mr. Lilley: It is extraordinary, but characteristic. We rarely hear anything much from the Labour party about its own policies.
    Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not characteristic that the Secretary of State has allowed Government interventions, not Opposition ones?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but for debate.
    Mr. Lilley: It is extraordinary that Opposition Members do not intervene even when given the opportunity to disassociate themselves from policies if they wish to do so.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the enormous success of the British invention—the transputer—a computer on a chip, which has been marvellously successful throughout the world? How does he react to this afternoon's announcement that the factory that produces it in Britain is to close and the jobs go overseas because the Government have failed to invest in the company? The Government abandoned that British company—the investment of British taxpayers—and sold it at a knockdown price. The computer will continue to be manufactured and be hugely successful, but it will be manufactured in France, Italy and the United States of America—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Lilley: I do not respond with the relish shown by Opposition Members. I shall talk on the precise subject of the encouragement of innovation, and research and development in a few minutes—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What about the answer?"] I shall first deal with a recent Opposition broadcast—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] What I have to say is relevant.
    The Labour party's most recent party political broadcast constituted—
    Several Hon. Members: Answer the question.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Give the Minister the opportunity to answer the question.
    Mr. Lilley: It was no surprise that none of the Labour spokesman on industry were considered fit to present the broadcast, as we know that not one of them has any experience of industry, let alone manufacturing industry. But what was strange was the choice of David Puttnam as presenter. I like his films, but he represents service industry, not manufacturing, and is best known as one of the country's rejected exports. He left this country for Hollywood amid great fanfares, declaring that it was too small for his talents—
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister reflect on what he has just said about the British film industry? He said that it was a service industry, not a manufacturing industry. Is that why we have lost so much in terms of our balance of payments under this Government and why the film industry has been hit so hard by the recession?
    Mr. Lilley: Having told us how wonderful it would be in America, David Puttnam came back here, and in the broadcast he asserted that a range of equipment in a typical British home— from televisions to personal computers—was mainly made abroad. That is simply not true. Britain exports many more television sets than it imports. The Leader of the Opposition should know that, because there are three television factories in south Wales, not far from his constituency.
    Mr. Neil Kinnock: I shall bring the Secretary of State back to the subject that he evaded earlier. There was a transputer factory in south Wales that employed my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). That factory is now closing down. The company,. Inmos, was established under a Labour Government and sold by the Conservative Government to EMI, which sold it to the Thomson company, which is nationalised. Does the right hon. Gentleman derive any joy from the fact that a British innovation— developed here, financed by taxpayers' money and turned into a profitable success—will now be produced entirely in France? Will he give us an honest answer?
    Mr. Lilley: I do not derive any joy from that, but I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should invest taxpayers' money in the company. If, God forbid, the right hon. Gentleman were ever to become Prime Minister, would he invest taxpayers' money in it?
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the reason Thomson took the company into France was that it operates within an infrastructure of enterprise that we shall establish here. That is why, even in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman describes as a world recession, France is still more successful, in every respect, than Britain under this Government.
    Mr. Lilley: That is a frank admission that the Labour party will reconstitute the National Enterprise Board. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of its history. It invested in 102 companies, 35 of which went to the receiver or went bankrupt. Some 27 of those companies were sold at a loss, and only 30 of them returned the taxpayers' money. That is the industrial record of the policy to which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to return.
    However, I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to turn attention away from the embarrassing party political broadcast that the he entitled "Made in Britain", while denigrating the achievements of British industry. The broadcast pretended that nothing in the kitchen was made in the United Kingdom, but 85 per cent. of kitchen units are made in this country. It pretended that all hi-fis were made abroad, but What Hi-Fi? magazine puts British manufacturers top for quality turntables, CD players and speakers, and states that the single best hi-fi product is a British-made amplifier. That industry can do without denigration from the Labour party.
    Mr. Puttnam was equally wrong about personal computers. Britain not merely invented them, but leads Europe in producing them. Nearly one in 10 personal computers sold in the world is made in Scotland. The Confederation of British Industry recently hailed the
    "transformation in Britain's manufacturing base"
    496
    during the 1980s. Its report, "Competing with the World's Best" showed that Britain's importation of manufactured goods as a proportion of gross domestic product was almost identical to that of Germany—so much for the message that the Labour party was trying to convey.
    Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend suggested that there was no connection between David Puttnam and a Labour Member in terms of the party political broadcast, but there is a tenuous but realistic link. David Puttnam produced an excellent film, "Chariots of Fire"; chariots have wheels. The message of the Labour party's political broadcast was that we should all buy British. It was no wonder that Opposition Members could not present a buy-British policy, as Labour Members buy chariots in the form of French cars.
    Mr. Lilley: That is absolutely true. To mark the very day of Labour's "Made in Britain" campaign, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) invested in a Citroen.
    The Government's priority is to strengthen further our industrial base, particularly by encouraging innovation. Economies grow not by doing the same old thing in the same old way but by constant innovation—not necessarily by quantum leaps and new inventions but by constant improvement of the products and processes in incremental steps.
    Mr. George Howarth: What computers does the right hon. Gentleman's Department use?
    Mr. Lilley: A whole range, including a large number of British computers. I have recently met one of the largest manufacturers of small computers and endeavoured to see that he had the maximum possible access not just to my Department but to the whole Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency network—
    Mr. Howarth: So the Department uses foreign ones too?
    Mr. Lilley: British and foreign, of course. But we do not pretend that the British ones are foreign.
    We need to accelerate the pace of innovation as each decade follows the previous one. Labour's approach to this problem, in so far as it has one, is far from innovative. It is a knee-jerk call for more Government spending on research and development, for more complex tax fiddles and for more state-run quangos. Those are precisely what we do not need.
    Already, a higher proportion of research and development in this country is financed by the state than it is in most of our competitors' countries—far more than in Japan, for instance. Tax fiddles do not work; they distort decisions, and their costs are often twice their benefit. Quangos without commercial motivation are likely to impede rather than ameliorate successful innovation. The fact is that the Government spend a higher proportion of our GDP on civil research and development than the Japanese Government. Our research is often immensely successful academically. We win more Nobel prizes than any other country except the United States of America—more than Germany, three times as many as France and 14 times as many as Japan.
    There is, however, all too little spin-off into commercial development and industrial activity. The answer is not

    497
    more public spending but to break down the barriers that impede commercial exploitation and the development of our intellectual capacity in the academic science base, to bring industry and the science base closer together.
    There are two kinds of barriers: institutional and cultural. We have already done much to reduce the institutional barriers and to remove the internal obstacles. As a result, contract research at unversities has much more than doubled since 1984, and collaborative research under our Link programme is growing fast. Already, about £350 million has been committed to it.
    In many ways, the cultural barriers are more deep-rooted and are harder to remove. They pervade academic, business and social attitudes. Cultural attitudes cannot be changed by legal fiat. They can be changed and encouraged only by a series of small steps, individually insignificant but cumulatively effective. That is why the Government have established an innovation unit in my Department, manned not just by officials but by secondees from business, people of the highest calibre with successful experience innovation in industry.
    We believe in taking advice from industry, not in telling business what to do. The unit's remit is to analyse, formulate and help to implement changes that will remove institutional and cultural barriers to innovation in business and the science base.
    One cultural barrier in this country is the low esteem that used to be accorded to engineering. It is vital that we recognise the crucial importance, demanding intellectual nature and economic relevance of the engineering profession. I welcome the steps being taken by the professional bodies to unite. That will give the profession a more powerful voice.
    Mr. Robert Litherland: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman's words of wisdom about engineering. This weekend I shall be going to GEC, where I will relate the words of the Minister to cheer up the workers who, however, will be on a picket line because 142 of them are being sacked. The inner-city area of Manchester has lost 20,000 jobs. What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that? Will he intervene and invite Mr. Weinstock to a meeting to talk to the workers and keep GEC going?
    Mr. Lilley: One does not succeed in business by propping up and artificially sustaining given manning levels, however tragic it may be—and I agree that it is—when jobs are lost. If we are to have long-term solutions rather than short-term responses, one of the key actions to take is that of enhancing the prestige of the engineering profession. That is why I attach such importance to it.
    I was pleased to give Government support to the premier engineering award recently—the McRobert award— to enhance the profession's prestige and standing. Today the first national innovation lecture is being given before a distinguished audience at the Royal Society, jointly sponsored by us, the Royal Society and the engineering bodies. I am delighted to add that the lecture is being given by Akio Morita, the founder of Sony and one of the outstandingly successful innovators in the world. He is also a good friend of this country.
    Finally, I welcome the CBI's recent excellent report on manufacturing, "Competing with the World's Best", which sets the objective of attracting more of the brightest and best young people into careers in engineering and
    498
    manufacturing. The CBI rightly emphasises the renaissance of manufacturing which began in the 1980s, and it condemns those who deny that fact and the achievements of our industry.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that Rolls-Royce is synonymous with quality. Indeed, it is the only remaining wholly British-owned company in the car business. Would he like to send a message to my constituents who have experienced a 47 per cent. increase in unemployment, including their utterly brutal ejection from their jobs by Rolls-Royce?
    Mr. Lilley: My Department has recently taken up on behalf of Rolls-Royce cars some of the problems in the American market that severely affect it. I presume that the hon. Lady does not share the belief of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that there is no severe recession in the United states: there is, and the problem has been aggravated by the tax on luxury cars there. We are doing all in our power to have that tax withdrawn so as to help the company and the hon. Lady's constituents.
    Earlier today, the Labour party issued an eight-page press release about the recession, including not a word about Labour's policies. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East made only the most cursory reference to his party's policy. Why does Labour shrink from spelling out the details of its policies? The answer is that it has been intellectually paralysed by the collapse of socialism throughout the world, on which its whole political thinking used to be based.
    This is not just my view; it is the view of Robert Harris, a Labour sympathiser, and he reached it in an article which merits reading out:
    "The truth is that Labour … is perilously close to brain dead … Where is the brainpower to galvanize the country and return a Labour Government? Sometimes in the right light Labour looks more impressive than it has for a generation: disciplined, talented, responsible, well-presented"—
    and lovely suits, one might add—
    "then you stand still for a moment and listen and you can hear … nothing. It is eerie. It is like walking down a street built on a film set: the technicians have put up wonderful frontages, but behind them—thin air."
    He concludes:
    "It is often said that previous Labour Government were blown off course. But at least they had a course to be blown off."
    That is why Labour Front-Bench spokesmen fall apart under questioning—they lack any underlying intellectual coherence. They have given their policies no sustained thought. They have had 13 years in opposition to rewrite their lines and to rehearse them, but they have been, for them, 13 wasted years.
    All this shows up in the drama over the Opposition's policy for the recession. In act I, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) announces a £1 billion cure for the recession. In act II, his right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook is asked how it will be financed and replies that it will have to wait for the economy to grow and generate some spare money. What a bizarre cure; it can only be administered when the patient is on the mend. It amounts to giving the economic body a blood transfusion only when it is strong enough to be a blood donor.
    In act III, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East disowns his right hon. Friend the

    499
    Member for Sparkbrook and says that the package would start straight away. He thus destroys Beckett's law, whereby Labour has only two pledges for immediate implementation. The right hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) wisely remains silent.
    The final act came this morning, when the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East revealed that not a penny of the proposed tax cuts in the emergency package for industry would reach industry before October 1993. We are back to deferred blood transfusions.
    Labour's emergency package amounts to a few hundred million pounds down on employment measures, plus a temporary tax cut on account. It is simply not credible that the growth of the gross domestic product of this country, which is worth £600 billion, can be entirely dependent on Government spending of one thousandth of that amount, more or less.
    In the absence of policies, what have the Opposition got in the way of people? If not measures, let us look at the men.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East aspires to be Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There is no harm in that; many people want the job, and most people do hold it from time to time. But I wonder how the hon. Member's job application would look. I suppose that it would read something like this: name, Brown, James Gordon; age 40¾ business experience, none so far; good degree in history; student rector of Edinburgh university 1972–75; temporary lecturer 1976; only job in the private sector, TV producer; believes this experience would fit him to run British industry, pick winners, select strategic investment, invest taxpayers' money, set up a state bank and take over water, electricity and eventually the other utilities.
    Mr. Dewar rose—
    Mr. Lilley: After today, I do not think that he would get an interview.
    Mr. Dewar: I just want to suggest to the Secretary of State that the trouble with this bit of character assassination is that the hon. Members to whom he is talking have just heard my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East's speech, and they have heard his.
    Mr. Lilley: They have heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East not a word of policy, not a positive proposal for British industry, no recognition of the importance of innovation, sneering at free trade, despising competition. They have heard his right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition saying that we are going back to the National Enterprise Board, to intervention, to policies which failed in the 1960s and were a dismal disaster in the 1970s.
    It is clear that Labour's policies would make recession worse and delay recovery. They would hit industry at every level. Their minimum wage would destroy job opportunities for the most vulnerable. Their national insurance increases would hit vital middle management. Their top-rate increase would cripple enterprise and those who create new jobs and businesses.
    Our policies have laid the conditions for sustained viable recovery. That depends above all on confidence at
    500
    home and a stable world trading environment abroad. Only a Conservative Government can secure that at home and pursue that abroad.
    I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's destructive motion.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: During the speeches of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and of the Secretary of State, my mind, I am afraid, drifted away from time to time to thinking about the difference between Dennis the Menace's dog Gnasher and Lord Snooty and his pals. It strikes me that there is only one difference between those two caricatures: Gnasher uses maximum energy to minimum effect; Lord Snooty uses minimum energy to minimum effect. What we have heard in the last one and half hours or so has sounded very much like that.
    We come to the House to listen to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East with keen anticipation, for he is a very fine debater. Indeed, had he joined my profession, the law, I am sure that he would have made an enormous success of it, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales. However, in his speech today he did not do much more than set the great conundrum of our time, as he would have it: is there or is there not a recession? It was as if the future of British industry and the British economy depended upon the answer to that conundrum. I thought that he would come up towards the end of his speech, like a great panjandrum, with the answer to the great conundrum. He talked about the Conservative messenger who did not believe the message. Yet he sounded a bit like the Labour messenger who had forgotten to carry the message with him.
    We heard from the hon. Gentleman a litany of entirely merited criticism of the Government's policies without any positive indication of what a Labour Government would do which I think that this House and the country are entitled to hear in a major debate, in Opposition time, the debate being of Labour's choosing, on our economy and industry.
    I am not sure if it matters a jot whether we label what is happening a recession. Whatever it is, it is happening; whatever it is, we know the symptoms; and whatever it is, we, as members of political parties in the House, owe the country the duty of telling it what we regard as beiing the cure, without the snarling and snapping that is giving the House a bad name.
    Something else occurred to me during the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He appeared to claim that there are those in industry and business who want a Labour Government, because they believe that a Labour Government could manage the economy, make the economy stronger and provide the base for manufacturing industry to grow. Yet he did not tell us who those people in industry are. He did not tell us which industrial organisations or chambers of trade—it is certainly not the Confederation of British Industry—want a Labour Government. He did not begin to address the important credibility gap, not just at home but abroad, by saying what would justify industry and business in supporting a Labour Government.
    Internal confidence needs external confidence. The Labour party has failed quite wretchedly to find any

    501
    external support in the financial institutions or economists of the world to encourage internal confidence if we had a Labour Government.
    Labour is right in saying that the French have done better. The Government are wrong to say that we are merely victims of a world recession. The French evidence mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition was good enough to show that. The German economy is still growing at a rate of 3·2 per cent. That is a remarkable success story, particularly when one considers the problems that Germany has had with unification. It is not in recession, at least to anything like the extent of the United Kingdom. It has managed to enjoy positive economic growth, while our GDP fell by 2·5 per cent. during 1991.
    The Treasury took a long time to recognise that Britain had suffered the biggest one-year drop since the great depression of the 1930s. The autumn statement projection of 2·25 per cent. growth for 1992 has been utterly discredited, and plainly was influenced by the prospect of a November election that never happened. It is likely that the fourth quarter figures due later this month will show that the economy was flat.
    The cumulative cost in terms of lost output has hit £100 billion—an average of £5,000 for every British family. The Government claim to be able to call on external confidence, but they fail to do anything to fuel the internal confidence that would justify a more optimistic view of the British economy for the future.
    Mr. Barry Field: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes much of forecasts that he claims were arranged in line with the timing of a possible general election. I remind him of the words of the Liberal Democrat pocket guide to Conservative party policy, published in 1991, which stated, to its credit:
    "The Conservatives in 1979 recognised the need for change after three decades of stultifying corporatism."
    If that was not a forecast of better economic prospects, what was? What would be the effect on the rural economy and on national inflation of the 50p increase in petrol prices that the Social Democrat leader advocated earlier this week?
    Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is a little off the point, and he is very selective in his reading. His first quotation related directly to trade union law reforms that he knows perfectly well were supported by my party. His second point was also selective. If he will read all our policy, he will find clearly stated our determination to ensure that rural areas are protected against the petrol price rises that the Conservatives, Labour, and my own party recognise are otherwise inevitable in due course to protect the environment. The Tory party has not said that it would ensure that rural areas do not suffer disproportionately as a result. The hon. Gentleman has made an entirely peripheral intervention. I will return to the subject of the debate.
    Part of the Government's failure can be seen every week in our constituency surgeries, at which small business people complain about the way in which their firms failed. Often, that happened not because they were poor managers but because they were unable to collect debts owed by other businesses that went broke. This serious problem led to the record 47,000 business failures that occurred in 1991.
    502
    Although prominence has been given to south-east England being especially badly affected by recent economic trends, Dun and Bradstreet surveys show that, in terms of percentage increases in insolvencies, Scotland and Wales were hardest hit, with increases of 77 per cent. and 74 per cent. respectively. It is not a south-east phenomenon, but has hit us all—including the rural areas where business expansion plays such an important role.
    The Government's forecasts have already been caricatured by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, and they were bizarre. Every season in 1991 the Government presented another inaccurate forecast. In the spring, we were promised that the recession would be "short-lived and shallow", and that growth would begin again towards the middle of the year. In the summer, we were told that Britain was coming out of the recession. In the autumn, we were informed that
    "the green shoots of economic spring are appearing once again."
    In the winter, the Government were driven to the desperation of calling upon alchemy—
    "what Disraeli once called the alchemy of time."
    The problems of manufacturing industry will be solved not by alchemy but by sound economic policies. That means managing the economy—not the use of alchemic tubes to produce some mythical solution.
    Industry has identified its own problems very clearly. The best economic predictions have come from the Confederation of British Industry, and particularly from its chief economist, Andrew Sentance. The CBI's latest quarterly industrial trends survey shows that confidence is virtually non-existent, and that new orders are expected to continue falling. Export orders declined significantly for a sixth successive quarter. Output showed a negative balance of 29 per cent., and, after a slight improvement in October, 34 per cent. of business men were less optimistic about their companies' prospects.
    I ask on behalf of my party, and of small business people in particular: why do the Government not take the steps that could be taken in an enterprise economy, without nationalisation and corporatism, to revive our service and manufacturing industries? I urge the Secretary of State to say why, when business person after business person tells him, "Of course, we must have a single European currency," he continues to insist on the opt-out that is so unrealistic and damaging to British industry? Is there one senior figure in British industry and commerce who really believes that we are not bound to have a single currency in the end? Why not accept that, and play a leading role in creating it in as beneficial an environment as possible?
    Why does not the Secretary of State accept the example of the German economy? Even allowing for different national characteristics, which are not unimportant, their experience is something that we could usefully follow. German interest rates have been taken out of the hands of politicians. They still exercise some influence, but they do not make the decisions. The independence of the German central bank, which is not immune to political influence, provides a guarantee of confidence in the German economy.
    Why did the Government choose, when the time was right, to ignore the good sense of going into the narrow bands of the exchange rate mechanism?
    Why will the Government not agree to reforming corporation tax, to guarantee its neutrality against

    503
    inflation, and to index it to provide more certain benefits to business than capital allowances—which would ensure that business inflationary gains would not be taxed?
    Why have the Government been so half-hearted about infrastructure projects? An obvious example is the channel tunnel. If one goes to Calais, one will see a few miles away the motorways to the channel tunnel that have already been constructed, and the train grand vitesse that is waiting to whisk travellers all over France—once they have managed to struggle to the tunnel. Why are the British Government not prepared to follow the example set by the Franch and to make it clear that the whole of Britain should benefit from the channel tunnel?
    Why is it that areas where industry is growing, such as the rural areas in my constituency, not only remain deprived of road infrastructure but are subjected to the destruction of the rail infrastructure by a British Railways Board intent on setting itself up for privatisation rather than providing the services that the public need?
    Why will the Government not refocus training and enterprise councils when it is clear that, although they are doing a good job in a limited area, TECs could achieve so much more if they could refocus on retraining people who are already in work rather than concentrating virtually all their resources on training those who are out of work? Both jobs need to be done. The TECs are failing to carry out the necessary retraining because they have not the resources to do so.
    Why do not the Government help the small businesses that face liquidation and bankruptcy by legislating for late payment of debt to be subject to statutory interest after 30 days?
    Why will they not reduce the administrative burdens on small firms by indexing employees' national insurance contributions and income tax, coupled with employee end-of-year self-assessment of tax? Why have they not provided a seedcorn capital investment programme to fund the administration costs of new projects? Such projects could be supported by regional private venture capital funds.
    We did not hear the Labour party mention any of those possible measures; nor did we hear the Government tell us what they would do to drag business out of the recession that has affected it so badly. I find no difficulty in telling the House that those measures can be taken, and that the people are entitled to be told what those measures are.
    Ours remains a great trading nation, it remains a manufacturing nation, and it remains one of the great financial and legal centres of the world. All those sectors of our economy, however, have suffered under recent Government policy.
    Mr. John Lee: All this is very fine, but may I ask a question about infrastructure? What would the hon. and learned Gentleman say to the many Liberals throughout the country who—as he knows full well—Opposed the expansion of the M65, especially in north-east Lancashire?
    Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a connection with that area. On occasion, I have made the railway journey from London to Burnley. It is fine until Preston; it then becomes picturesque—I think that that is the most complimentary description that can be applied.
    504
    Our policy is to put as many passengers and as much freight as possible on to a decent railway system, as opposed to a system that is constantly being dismantled by British Rail.
    We will not revive the British economy by means of state intervention; nor will we revive it by nationalising either our own industries or those in other countries on which we spend money; nor will we revive it by taking our hands off and not intervening in any way. There are many precedents for a well-run but not over-managed enterprise economy—an economy stimulated by fiscal measures in particular, which would generate confidence within business, and external confidence in the United Kingdom.
    I have offered the House just a few of those measures. There are many more, and it is a pity that we have not heard about any of them this evening from other parties.
    6.33 pm
    Mr. Kenneth Warren: I declare an interest: I was in industry for 20 years, and I have been in Parliament for 20 years. As I listened to the remarkable, fiery speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), an amazing thought came to me. I was reminded of a phrase that is often heard in industry: he passed through at supersonic speed, generating much heat but no light.
    I presume that the hon. Gentleman has now gone out to take a shower and cool off. I am sorry that he has left us, because I feel that he should be here to learn what it is like to be in industry, and what it is like to know how to deal, when fighting in foreign markets, with the effect that his speech will have on our exporters. I am sorry that Mr. Morita was not present to listen to the hon. Gentleman, for I hope to be with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listening to Mr. Morita. I think that Mr. Morita would be extremely worried, given his possible plans for investment in this country, not to have heard Labour's plans for the taxation of industry and its encouragement if it ever achieves power. I hope that we shall hear the answer from the Opposition Member who winds up the debate.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Warren: Well, seeing it's you.
    Mr. Williams: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I was in charge of inward investment under a Labour Government. I negotiated with Mr. Morita in Japan, and met him in this country. He knows that we are very supportive, and, indeed, that we initiated much of the Japanese investment that has taken place.
    Mr. Warren: I am not so sure how successful the right hon. Gentleman really was. I know that he meant well, but I remember that he started the Inmos programme and completely failed to invest the amount that was necessary. He made it possible for the company to set up its headquarters in the United States. That seemed to have been forgotten when the Leader of the Opposition intervened earlier.
    Let us consider how industry will have received the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. I have some questions to pose on the basis of my industrial knowledge, which I hope may help hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no doubt that, over the past few yeaers, the country has achieved a remarkable

    505
    reduction in inflation and a remarkable improvement in the level of exports. As an ex-trade union official, I also welcome the improvement in industrial relations across the country.
    We have a great basis for the revival of British industry, but that revival will require a combined effort—the kind of team work that has not been affected in government for 20 or 30 years. We may not have understood as well as we should that, when we face great competitors like Mr. Morita and his colleagues—and our competitors in West Germany —we should examine the way in which they compete with us. Those countries show a unique dedication, in industry and financial services and in their Governments, to trying to act as a team. I should like to see much more of that here. I should like to take industry out of the cauldron of dissension in which it is so often placed when it is debated in the House.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned the problem of small businesses, and the difference between what they need and what is done to them by the financial services organisations. I am sure that every hon. Member has repeatedly been approached by the small business men who come to tell us that the banks are threatening to put them out of business. We know that, in fact, the banks are trying to recoup their top management errors—failed ventures in the second and third worlds.
    When it is suggested to a local bank manager that it may be better to try to keep a little business going than to lose even more money by making it bankrupt, it seems that such matters can no longer be decided at local branch level. All the local knowledge of bank managers is no longer used. Only today, I heard of a major bank that apparently requires a second manager to vet all loans—a manager who has no knowledge of the small businesses to whom such loans might be made.
    The banks in particular need to look at their investment policies. They need to see themselves as essential collaborators with industry. I hope that the Government, as the country's largest single customer, will examine the way in which it can play a part in reviving British industry and its opportunities. The fundamental problem is that we are not competing in world markets as well as we could be.
    In terms of the manufacturing share that we have captured, we are better off per capita than those who export from the United States or Japan. Ahead of us, however, lies not only the problem of the unity of those countries in endeavouring to hold on to the markets and deny them to us, but the way in which the Japanese themselves are surging forward.
    Before I say more about that, let me deal with the return on investment in this country, and the need for the Government to address the problems—which are long-standing and have spread over many periods of office—to establish whether, as the Budget draws near, some solution might be found.
    Between 1976 and 1990—I say this to please the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams)—the return on investment in manufacturing industry has been 8 per cent. In West Germany, it has been 15 per cent. and in Japan 22 per cent. With the return on investment being so small, it is no surprise that people do not want to invest in manufacturing industry. If one has some money to save, it seems sensible to place it where it will gain the best return. So we end up with the problems with which we are familiar. Over the same period, in the United Kingdom, £2,000 per man was invested in industry. In West
    506
    Germany, it was nearly £3,000 per man, and in Japan it was over £5,000. It is a better bet. The team spirit across the economy encourages people to invest in industry in those countries and helps them to hold on to world markets.
    We must not despair, as we so often do, about the ability of British industry to rise when it is given the opportunity. The Japanese have invested in Britain and brought the team spirit here. One has only to look at the performance of Mr. Morita's Sony and the Nissan company in Sunderland to see that British workers, given the opportunity, out-perform the parent companies in Japan. It is splendid to know that Japanese televisions from south Wales and motor cars from the north-east are being exported back to Japan. If we can get our act together, we can beat them all. That is not just rhetoric. We know from experience in our constituencies and our opportunities to visit factories that there is the willingness, determination and ability to conquer.
    That is a base—I am again referring to the Budget—from which more should be done. From my industrial experience, I believe that we are doing all that from too narrow an educational base. In West Germany and Japan, twice as many young people complete studies up to A-level. If one is to do a good job in engineering, one needs to be equipped not just with the tools of the trade but with the intellectual breadth of learning that can enable one to use those tools most effectively. I should like to see the Government look at ways of raising the quality of education and keeping more people in our education system up to A-level.
    I should like to remind the Government, whom I loyally support, that there is a need to look at research establishments, whether they are Government sponsored or in private industry. We are funding far too few alpha-rated research projects. Only about 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the projects put forward are receiving funding. Those projects are the seedcorn for five, 10 or 15 years' time. In domestic electronics, it is a couple of years before patents are out in the marketplace, and in the pharmaceutical industry it can be 10 to 15 years. Greater attention needs to be paid to sowing the seedcorn to ensure that it grows.
    In the forthcoming Budget, we could also look at training. British industry is achieving great things, but technicians and craftsmen attend, on average, one course in 14 years of employment. Think what we could do if we had the same level of training as West Germany or France. Overall, employees in industry attend one course in 33 years or one course in a 45-year period in industry. That is not good enough. However, the Government alone should not be responsible for that. The captains of industry should look to the way in which they are running the training courses for their employees. They should not sit back and wait for Government action. If we are to meet the problems that we will face in the future, we need more investment in training.
    The Japanese and the Germans—our major competitors—are waging a patent war against us, and major problems will arise. We turn in about 24,000 patents a year. The Germans turn in 31,000—a substantial increase on our figure—but the Japanese turned in 10 times that amount—309,000—in 1988, the last year for which figures are available. The Government should look to their agencies to try to produce data more up to date than those

    507
    over three years old. It is immensely difficult to do corporate planning, let alone produce political manifestos, if one has to rely on statistics that are so out of date.
    Mr. Stuart Randall: The hon. Gentleman is highly regarded on industry policy, and we always listen to him with care and interest. He talked about a poor return on investment—I think that he used the 8 per cent. figure. How does he advocate breaking in to the chicken-and-egg problem of getting investment going but not being able to do it when the return is so low? Does he support the Government's almost totally hands-off industrial policy, or does he feel that some greater level of intervention is necessary in order to achieve a better return and thereby higher rates of investment in industry?
    Mr. Warren: With great respect, not because I am a Conservative, but because of my experience in industry, I would stick to our policy rather than that of the Opposition.
    I have talked about planting the seedcorn and about training. The initiatives must come particularly from industry to make it more worth while to invest. The problems of industry will not be solved simply by throwing money at them. Throwing taxpayers' money at those problems is simply a waste of workers' wages. We must raise the quality of those working in industry so that they can be more competitive. That will attract investment. We must get away from the candy-floss opportunity for investment and show that it is far better to put money into production lines.
    The Government should look seriously at the fact that they are the largest single customer in the country. The Government buy £4 billion-worth of goods and services each year in information technology. Half that is taken up by the defence industry. The Government buy 20 per cent. of all British output. That is not a form of interventionism. The Government are buying what they need. Surprisingly, government is the most labour-intensive business in the country, and it certainly needs more information technology.
    The Government must look at the way in which such purchasing power affects the corporate strategy of British companies. People queue up to sell to Boeing and to Marks and Spencer. I should like to see them queuing up to sell to the Government, because they are a good customer. If we can get better buyers in government, we will get better value for money and lower taxation. That is the intervention of common sense.
    Having listened to the stirring of muddy waters from the Opposition Front Bench, I must convey a feeling that I know runs throughout industry. Industrialists and workers do not have confidence in the Labour party, and I trust that it will not succeed in the vote tonight or in the election to come.
    6.48 pm
    Mrs. Audrey Wise: There is a place in my constituency called Strand road. Preston is an attractive town, but I cannot pretend that Strand road is an attractive place. However, it is an important place. It has been the heart of industry in my constituency. It has two large factories—British Aerospace, which is in the process
    508
    of closing, and GEC, where the workers are worried about their prospects and the lack of orders for trains. If one goes around Preston, one will find closed factories, factories with greatly reduced work forces and factories with worried workers.
    After 13 years, the Tory Government still keep talking about long-term solutions. I have a five-year-old grandson so I know exactly what five-year-olds are like. A five-year-old from 13 years ago is now an 18-year-old wondering about the prospects for the future. To that 18-year-old, those 13 years have offered ample opportunity for many a long-term solution, but all he or she faces is a long-term mess.
    Manufacturing employment in the north-west has fallen by 37 per cent. since 1979; 322,000 jobs have been lost. Even according to the rather fraudulent means by which employment figures are now calculated, unemployment in the north-west is more than 152,000 higher. The Secretary of State says, "Be optimistic." I rather favour optimism, but if one is in a snow storm, optimism cannot keep one warm. I favour positive thinking, but, as a gardener, I know that it will not protect geraniums from the frost. Optimism is very nice and is very useful, but it does not guard against the harshest facts of climate or economic climate.
    The Government's amendment does not mention unemployment, but it complains about the social charter and the national minimum wage. Presumably the Government think that workers must try to maintain their jobs by being willing to accept any wages and conditions. I do not think that that is what workers in my constituency want. They want useful, secure jobs that pay good wages and offer good conditions. A Government worth their salt should be prepared to say, "Yes, it is partly our responsibility to create the conditions in which that will happen."
    Tory Members in my area seem to think that it is my fault that jobs at British Aerospace are under threat and that I am responsible for the Government's defence procurement policy. That is remarkable. I have a straightforward view on defence. It is essential to defend the country, which will cost money, but we should ensure that it costs as little as possible and that the primary purpose of defence expenditure is saving and creating jobs in our country. I also think that that makes defence sense. From an industrial, economic and defence point of view, British Aerospace workers rightly object strongly to the build up of non-UK arms industries.
    Mr. Roger King: What is the hon. Lady talking about?
    Mrs. Wise: I am talking about the fact that British Aerospace's management has told me that they are hindered by the Government's procurement policy, which consists of going into the marketplace as if they are buying butter and seeing what is cheapest, regardless of its effect on the company's capacity to plan ahead.
    Mr. King: I was guilty of saying, "What is the hon. Lady talking about?", because I understand that Labour's policy is to slash defence expenditure and not to encourage overseas arms sales, to which British Aerospace is resolutely committed. It confidently expects to conclude a substantial arms deals in the Persian Gulf area shortly. Would an incoming Labour Government tear that up?
    Mrs. Wise: I have tried to explain in words of one syllable that, despite the Government's policy of high arms expenditure, defence jobs have melted away like snow in summer. I have also tried to explain that I favour a rational policy of forward planning and of ensuring that defence expenditure keeps our workers in employment. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman cannot follow that.
    Mr. Lee: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Wise: I have just given way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). That is quite enough.
    I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Northfield for arms exports. I do not want workers in my constituency to depend on other people's wars and suffering for their jobs. That is not the way in which they would prefer to earn their living, given an opportunity for useful and peaceful production. A Labour Government will lead us towards useful and peaceful production. I shall do my share to encourage that.
    An Opposition Front-Bench spokesman visited Preston today and spoke about the defence diversification agency, which I believe will be of much value to British Aerospace workers in my area. That constructive policy will build for the future and will not depend on other people's wars or on giving dictators and repressive regimes the means to keep their people down.
    The contract for maintenance work on tornado aircraft has just been awarded to RAF St. Athan. I believe that taxpayers' money should be used most effectively. The skilled workers who built the Tornado, who know it through and through, are in my constituency. Seven hundred jobs are at stake. I do not understand the logic of investing £40 million to maintain the Tornado at St. Athan. The Royal Air Force personnel will inevitably be less efficient, because the trained workers are in Preston.
    We fear that, because it may prove extremely difficult to find enough Royal Air Force staff at St. Athan, some of the workers from Preston will take the civilian jobs that may become available there and end up doing the same work but away from their families. That is not a logical way to go about things. The Ministry of Defence must invest in maintenance by using civilian workers who are already familiar with the aircraft they maintain.
    Next door to the British Aerospace factory which is closing is GEC, which needs orders for trains. It is years since British Rail ordered any high-speed trains. I should like to give some international comparisons. InterCity uses class 91 (IC225) first generation trains. Class 93 (IC250), if produced, would be the second generation. Although InterCity has become the only profitable railway system in the world, it has been required to cut over £90 million from its 1991–92 budget to help ease the overall British Rail financial crisis. That is cloud cuckoo land.
    While British Rail is compelled to slash its investment programme, the Swedes are now on their second successful generation of the X train, and Japan is on its third generation of the bullet. The French are on the third generation of the TGV and are exporting it in mass to Spain and America. The French Government have decided that the TGV Atlantique is of economic benefit to a depressed region and have provided additional investment finance.
    Why has British Rail had to slash its investment? Because there is no coherent transport policy in this
    510
    country. I am pleased that Labour is committed to a coherent transport policy which will consider at one and the same time transport needs and the industrial development brought about by supplying those transport needs, including export shop windows. That would also save employment and improve the environment.
    All we have from the Government are quarrels among their Front Benchers about how to privatise British Rail, not about how to get investment or to keep trains running. They are quarrelling about the exact forms of the companies under privatisation, no doubt because they want whatever form of privatisation will give the best return to their friends. My constituents in GEC need Labour's transport policy. With that, there would be orders for trains. With orders for trains, the work force at GEC would have secure jobs.
    Lest anyone thinks that that is just my gloss on matters, Labour's programme for transport says that there will be
    "a substantial and sustained increase in investment in new transport infrastructure."
    The position is the same with buses. We have seen the killing of a coherent public transport bus system. I get complaints from some people that too many buses run past their doors because they are on lucrative routes. I get complaints from others that there are no buses. If people live two miles outside a town, and have toddlers or are elderly, they might as well live on the moon.
    Labour stands for the development of public transport, which needs buses. Good public transport needs new buses. Deregulation opened the way for a good secondhand market in buses, but it did nothing for Leyland Bus. Vigorous trade in clapped-out vehicles is no good for safety or for the environment, and it is deplorable for Leyland Bus in the Lancashire area. Labour will go a long way towards curing our transport ills.
    Although I have concentrated on manufacturing, I must remind the House— I may be the only hon. Member to do so—that all that has a knock-on effect on retailing. It takes longer to get through, but it has got through now. In Preston, Lewis's has a fortnight's stay of execution. It is a perfectly good shop. Why did it go bust? The answer is that people cannot afford to buy. Employment in retail trade also depends on a healthy economy.
    In not mentioning unemployment in their amendment, the Tories are guilty of a give-away. They have talked about high tax. That shows nerve, coming from the party which increased VAT from 8 to 17·5 per cent., with adverse affects on retailing and everyone apart from the best off. Not too many pensioners pay income tax, but all pensioners pay VAT. VAT is well known as a highly regressive tax.
    When the Prime Minister tables an amendment which complains about high taxation, he should take the message to heart. We stand for fair taxation. Fair taxation would help to bring about a healthy economy, because ordinary people would have more money to spend in the shops. If we have a sensible policy on investment in manufacturing, people will be able to spend their money on goods made in Britain, thus keeping jobs. In that way, the British economy would cease to be a leaky bucket and would have recycling and increased creation of wealth. I look forward to that day.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must remind the House that between now and 9 o'clock speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
    7.6 pm
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not interesting that, whether we are talking about the level of teenage pregnancies, drug-taking, homelessness, the retention of hedgerows in the countryside, crime or the economy, the Labour party's reaction is as boringly predictable as Pavlov's dogs: everything is always solely the fault of the Conservative Government. Like Auntie Maggie's home-made remedy, which I should like to sing, that judgment applies to everything, without exception. But unlike Auntie Maggie's highly prized medicament, it is certainly not "guaranteed never to fail". It will fail because the electorate can see straight through it.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who opened the debate for the Opposition, has given a lulu of a hostage to fortune in that wonderful quote:
    "There is no world recession."
    My word, that will come back to haunt him; it will probably rank in future with that famous phrase, "I see no ships." There are one or two other examples.
    The voter knows well that every major trading nation is having trouble with its economy. The Labour party is unhappy that news should come out that there is a recession in places such as America, Australia and New Zealand. With injunctions being very much in the news, I fear that the Labour party may slap an injunction on any news about recession in any part of the world. I see no point in denying that Britain is in recession too, or that I worry about unemployment and am deeply concerned about the number of bankruptcies. But there is good news, too.
    British industry is in a much better condition than it was 12 years ago. Inflation is below the EC average, corporation tax is the lowest in the industrialised world and, in spite of some of the things that have been said, we attract far more inward investment than our competitors. I am thinking especially of France and Germany.
    I was interested to read in the Financial Times that, of the top 500 companies in Europe, 181 are British, 63 are French and 63 are German. The Economist and Director magazine commented that, of the top 400 European industrial companies, 120 are British, 75 French and 71 German. So we are not doing badly in comparison to our neighbours across the channel. We are sound and competitive and we are no longer the sick man of Europe, although I remember when we were.
    I shall suggest one or two ways in which the Government could help businesses in trouble. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said—he has now left the Chamber—one of the major problems faced by small and medium sized businesses is bad debt. I agree with him about that, but I was interested to hear that his party is apparently committed to doling out lots of taxpayers' money to help any firm that happens to be in difficulty. That way disaster lies, but bad debt is another question.
    In Birmingham we are proud of our spanking new convention centre. It incorporates the finest concert hall in the world, a theatre and every possible adjunct for every possible conference on any subject. Many firms were engaged in building it and did a fine job. The scheme cost about £160 million and we understood at the time that it
    512
    would create 2,000 new jobs directly and 10,000 support jobs before very long. That was good news, but more than 100 companies which helped to build the centre have not been paid. Some have been forced into bankruptcy because of that non-payment, not because the major firm has gone out of business.
    A constituent came to see me in desperation only last Friday. He was on the verge of calling in the receivers. If he does so, that will mean the loss of 50 more jobs in my area. I have not yet been able to find out exactly why that is happening. Perhaps the city council has not handed over the money or perhaps there is a dispute about the final bill, but what matters to me is that good, honest, hard-working small business men are being made bankrupt not because they are inefficient or because of bad workmanship but because money owed to them is not being paid
    Some time ago we debated the possibility of the enforcement of the payment of interest on outstanding bills. The Federation of Small Businesses is not in faovur of that, although there is an argument for it. The federation calls for a reform of the small claims court and wants any judgment for payment outstanding after 28 days automatically to trigger an enforcement hearing. That might be the answer, but I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider the terrible problem of bad debts.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Dame Jill Knight: No, I am short of time.
    In the west midlands, nothing is more important than the motor industry. Tens of thousands of small businesses provide components for cars and the west midlands stands or falls by the success of the car industry. Nothing would help us more than the removal of the 10 per cent. surcharge on new car sales, which I believe to be a tax on a tax. The industry badly needs such a shot in the arm.
    I do not like businesses being unpaid tax collectors, but that has been happening for some time. However, I hope that it will not be extended. I do not like the requirement to make deductions from employees who do not pay the community charge, and there are one or two further issues that I would mention if I had the time.
    There is a problem with a European Community law on contaminated land. It is very important in my area and, in others that derelict land is reclaimed and revitalised and that all its possibilities are exploited. In the west midlands there is a very important firm called Richardson Developments. It bought about 10 or 12 years ago an ex-Ministry ordnance works which manufactured Royal Navy guns and gunnery equipment. There were 20 units on the site which were in reasonable condition and 20 more have been built, so it is now a reasonable size of about 40 small industrial units.
    The site borders Coventry canal and one day a tenant washed a machine and caused slurry to go into the canal. Richardson Development, not the tenant, was yanked into court, which was a terrible thing to happen to such a firm. Nothing happened to the firm because the judge threw out the case. Richardson was given a conditional discharge for two years and there was no financial penalty but it was a waste of time and money. I am concerned that banks are now issuing warnings about the draft EC directive which say that firms could be liable for the clean-up costs of their industrial customers. It is a complicated matter but one which I hope my hon. Friends will consider.

    513
    We shall not take any lessons from the Labour party about how to handle the economy. Labour's policies would ruin it and we would lose all that we have gained. We should once again be in thrall to militancy and the unions. The harm done by militant trade unions to the car industry in the 1970s was incalculable. It all but ruined that industry.
    I am worried now that the Labour party say that it will end capping. Birmingham city council is spending the most amazing sums on the most extraordinary projects and I hope that the burden of these crazy ideas will not be put on industry because that would be just one more death knell.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Alan Williams: In the 10 minutes available to me I shall touch on a subject which is virtually taboo, especially in the run-up to an election. What I have to say is inevitably anathema to both Front Benches, although I understand why that should be so. However, it is an issue about which hon. Members from all parties are concerned. I am talking about the rate of exchange in relation to recovery.
    Before we enter into any silliness such as sloganising and catcalls of "Labour devaluers", let me point out that the Heath Administration effectively devalued by 20 per cent. and the Conservative party lived happily for 20 years with a floating exchange rate. They never thought that it was a sacred cow which could not be discussed.
    Let us at least try to be realistic, because we all want to get out of this mess. I recognise the fact that neither Front Bench can say the things that need to be said, but, in the light of my experience in four economic Departments and as one who is an economist by academic background, I am absolutely convinced that the goal that we seek is not attainable with the present rate of exchange.
    The Prime Minister said that we were set for steady and sustainable growth. I want to explain why that is not possible and I shall bore the House with three figures which demonstrate the magnitude of the problem. From the North sea we have had a £130 billion balance of payments benefit in a decade, but, in that same period, with that bonus to the balance of payments, we ran a deficit of £25 billion. Therefore, our basic non-oil deficit is £155 billion. That is where Conservative Members start and also where we start on the other side of an election. So I hope that we can try to consider the matter in a mature and sensible way—I do not mean that patronisingly.
    The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said that the Government's chosen option is a consumer-led recovery. But a consumer-led recovery is an illusion. We have heard of fool's gold; a consumer-led recovery is fool's IOUs.
    For long-established reasons, people in Britain have a tendency to spend 36 per cent. of the extra money in their pockets on imports. If we get the consumer-led growth for which the Chancellor aims, and £9 billion is put into circulation as a result of the change in mortgage interest rates, it will draw in an extra £3 billion worth of imports.
    If Conservative Members think that I am being alarmist, I ask them to read the autumn statement—the Chancellor made provision for the balance of payments deficit to increase by £3·6 billion in this financial year, because he recognised the inevitability of the process that I have described.
    514
    I have three precedents to show that this is a not a short-term or new situation. I do not pretend that it is caused by one party or another. It so happens that my precedents are taken from Conservative Governments, but I do not make the point in a party-political sense. I wanted to take one precedent from each decade.
    In 1958, Harold Macmillan went for growth. In October of that year, for the first time since the war, the Government got rid of all credit controls. Twelve months later, there was the never-had-it-so-good election. Car sales had gone up by 30 per cent. and sales of domestic consumables by 20 per cent. Six months after the election, all the credit controls had to he restored, and by 1964 we were running a deficit which in terms of today's currency was £5 billion.
    In the 1970s, the Heath Administration's having inherited what in today's terms would be a £5 billion surplus, Lord Barber—then a Member of the House and Chancellor of the Exchequer—made a dash for growth. Again, he removed all credit controls. Within a short time, inflation had risen to 15 per cent.—that was before the oil crisis hit us— and the balance of payments was in deficit again.
    The Labour Government inherited that 15 per cent. inflation—and a fourfold increase in oil prices was still to come. Again, the dash for growth via consumer spending did not work; it ran into the ground. Conservative Members are very unkind to their colleagues sometimes —as no doubt we are, too—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was lionised for winning the 1987 election for them has now been attacked because his credit policies are in danger of costing them the 1992 election.
    Those are three clear precedents that demonstrate what I am trying to explain to the House. Hon. Members can check them all for themselves. The lesson is that the higher the consumer-led growth, the higher the consequent trade deficit—and therefore the greater the pressure on the pound, the higher interest rates have to go, and the deeper the subsequent deflation —or even recession—becomes.
    We all share the aspiration to get inflation down until it equals that of our competitors, but let us not believe that that is the way out. Reducing the changes in our prices to the level of the changes in our competitors' prices merely stops the gap widening. At least from that time we should be competing on equal terms, but the existing gap in our basic competitiveness would remain. We should have to get our inflation below the level of our competitors' inflation and, in the case of Germany, we all realise that that is an improbable target.
    The only way out is export-led growth—in that I include import substitution. That can be achieved only if, at a stroke—to use a political phrase—we make our industry more competitive in the short term by removing our current competitive disadvantages. That means realignment of the currency.
    Even that would work only if it were matched by a massive programme of increased manufacturing investment. It is no good devaluing without investing. We must have investment in order to take advantage of the situation. We have slack in our capacity now, so we should have an initial boost, but in order to reap the medium and long-term benefits of a devaluation, manufacturing investment must be there, to carry forward the export benefits established.
    I should like to kick aside a silly argumentative delusion that is being allowed to gain currency—I am mixing every

    515
    metaphor in the book. That delusion is the idea that inward investment is dependent on the existence of a single currency, or on absolutely stable exchange rates. History and the experience of everyone in the House show the opposite.
    In the 1970s. when the Labour party was in government, we got inward investment to the highest level that had ever been achieved—that was with a floating pound. In the 1980s the Conservative Government, too, got inward investment to the highest level that had ever been achieved until then. That, too, was achieved with a floating pound. So the idea that I mentioned is an irrelevance which we can ignore.
    The tragedy is that after 12 oil-rich years we are in recession. There has been no miracle —the Government have walked not on water but on oil, and now they are trying to walk on hot air. All that we have is a promise from the Prime Minister that British industry is the most competitive that it has ever been. I take that with a pinch of salt. The Prime Minister did not see the recession coming, and he did not see it when it arrived, yet he has seen the end of it before anyone else is aware of any light at the end of the tunnel. Sadly, the Government are living a long and a big lie. They hope that they can hold the election before the public discover the truth.
    7.26 pm
    Mr. John Lee: My constituency has 55 per cent. of its people employed in manufacturing—the highest level in the country. Our dominant industries are textiles, aerospace and furniture. I have a personal involvement in tourism, in manufacturing, in construction and in investment, as detailed in the Register of Members' Interests. I therefore welcome the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate.
    I start by looking back to 1979, when the Government came to power. Industry and business were demoralised; taxation on individuals had gone up to 98p in the pound; there were controls on prices, pay and dividends. Business men were talking about emigration rather than expansion. The cry from business was, "Set us free, and we shall deliver the goods." That is what the Government did when they came to power.
    We scrapped dividend controls, price controls and pay controls. Tough decisions were taken in the early 1980s. In constituencies such as mine, things were difficult. Textile mill after textile mill closed and unemployment rose to 16 per cent. in those difficult years. But during the 1980s, industry recovered and confidence returned. We succeeded in generating an enterprise culture in this country. Our enterprise zones—such as those at Lomashaye and White Walls, in my constituency—have been a great success. They are now chock-a-block. Our enterprise allowance scheme, too, was a great success.
    Management became more professional. Increasingly, we became a strike-free country. The economy grew and, as the Financial Times said in an article today, about 500 new businesses were created each day during the 1980s. Sadly, towards the latter part of the 1980s, we had an excess of credit, an excess of borrowing, an excess of optimism and some over-inflated egos in the business community; the bubble burst. What lessons can we learn from that?
    516
    Too much of the expansion then, usually by acquisition, was away from the core business. There was an excess of borrowing and bankers too often threw caution and financial prudence to the wind. Too many financial deals and business deals were fee-driven, and the merchant banks and stockbroking firms had vested interests in deals being done. Too frequently, entrepreneurs ignored the time factor and failed to realise that it takes many years to build a successful business. Too many tried to develop too quickly.
    Over the past two years, we have been through a difficult and tough world recession. Trading conditions are difficult now. It is tough out there—unless, of course, one is a receiver. The conditions in my region in the north-west in relative terms have improved. Unemployment in Pendle, although it sadly rose, is now just short of 7 per cent. compared with the 16 per cent. of the 1980s, and our unemployment is now below the regional and the national average. As I said last week in the House, the north-south divide has ceased to exist as an issue.
    The Labour party's proposals offer industry very little. The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) talked about a defence diversification agency. She is not here now, which is sad because I had planned to ask her whether she could give us some examples of products that those industries might manufacture. The Labour party has talked about a minimum wage. As Neville Bain, the chief executive of Coates Viyella plc and one of the leading figures in the textile industry, has pointed out, if a minimum wage were introduced, a considerable number of textile jobs would be transferred overseas. The higher taxes which the Labour party proposes would be unlikely to stimulate business men to invest. Labour seems to imagine that if there were a Labour Government and a Labour Chancellor, he would find a lever in the Treasury labelled "economic growth" which no one else had been able to see.
    I want to speak briefly about tourism. I was Minister with responsibility for tourism and I am now involved in tourism as chairman of County Holidays Ltd. and of ALVA, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. By the year 2000, tourism will probably be the world's No. 1 industry, yet in this country, we treat it as relatively minor and unimportant. Rocco Forte, the chief executive of Forte plc and the president of the British Hospitality Association wrote in an excellent article in the Evening Standard this week, tourism employs one in 15 of the world's population and one in 10 in Europe. In the latter 1980s, tourism and hospitality created almost 1,000 net new jobs a week. I urge the Government when they consider the possibility of reorganising the structure of government and Departments to consider after the election bringing together tourism, the arts, heritage and, perhaps, the film industry under a senior Minister to raise the overall profile of those sectors.
    I look forward to the Budget on 10 March as one that will help industry and which will stimulate investment. I hope that there will be measures to help the motor car industry, as other hon. Members have said. I hope that the Budget on 10 March will provide the backdrop for a further and steady reduction in interest rates. The recovery in the economy will certainly come. The general election itself is causing many business men to hold back from investing. They are waiting for the result of the election. After the election, when we have been returned to office, there will be a surge in confidence and the country will then be on its way to recovery.
    7.34 pm
    Miss Joan Lestor: The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seemed to be saying two or three things. One was that there was a world recession which meant that there was nothing that the Government could do and that it was not their fault. He spoke as if that absolved him from any responsibility for what has happened in the country generally and especially in my region over the past few years. If it is true that the recession is a world recession, which I do not accept, the Government have no right to say to the electorate, "Vote for us and we will put everything right," because they have said that there is nothing they can do because the forces are outside their control.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made a speech of his usual standard and was very commanding. The Secretary of State taunted my hon. Friend for having no business experience and he taunted others by saying that they had no industrial experience. He said that we needed men and women with such experience. If the result of 13 years of this Government is lying at the feet of people who have had business and industrial experience, and if we consider the unemployment, the closures of business, the poverty, the misery and the cuts in services which have swept across the country, especially in the north-west, all I can say is thank God some of us are business and industrial virgins. Those with experience have not made a very good job of it.
    I was interested in the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who is no longer here, and by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who also comes from my region. I am glad, because I visited Pendle recently, that unemployment has begun to fall there. However, 7 and 8 per cent. are high levels of unemployment. That is a lot of jobs many people in his area and in mine are suffering the worst possible effects of unemployment.
    The Government said that we spread doom and gloom around. Things are very gloomy in the north-west. It is very miserable in the north-west especially for many of the young people who grow up, leave school and then have nowhere to go. Business failures in the north-west rose more than 50 per cent. between the third quarter of 1990 and the third quarter of 1991. There was a 63 per cent. rise in bankruptcies and a 43 per cent. rise in liquidations. Most of those involved small businesses, many of which had been encouraged by the Government and by the banks to invest and to get on the road to prosperity.
    Many of those involved come to see me about their difficulties, and I am sure that other hon. Members see similar people. Their difficulties include interest rates which went so high for many people after they had started their businesses and bad debts which they are unable to collect. The Government, having encouraged them to go forward, stood back and did nothing to help them.
    In our region, we have had 322,000 job losses, one of the worst figures in any region. Although there has been a small rise in jobs in the service sector, which we were told would be the compensation, it has been the smallest rise of any region, at 6·4 per cent., which has not compensated for the enormous loss of jobs in manufacturing industry.
    We have had an increase in unemployment of 98·6 per cent. in the north-west since 1979. That is a lot of jobs and a lot of people. Many people have been unemployed for at least one year and many others have been unemployed for
    518
    more than six months. The tragic figure is that 36·6 per cent. of those unemployed are aged between 18 and 25. Many below that age have never had a job. Many of those between 18 and 25 have never had a job.
    What has happened to that group of young people in this recession? What has happened to those who have never had a job has rubbed off on their younger brothers and sisters in our schools. They see no prospects and they have no hope. Daily from the television screens the message that comes out to them is that if they have not got a car—ours is among the smallest proportion of car owners in the country—if they have not got a telephone—the same applies to telephones—and if they do not have all the signs of prosperity, they are failures.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) about the need for training. Our policy on training is important because we have lost so many skills through unemployment. People have been unable to be trained to keep pace with new developments. Therefore, the important part of our policy, which must be put into operation the moment we become the Government in the next few weeks, is to start training not only those coming on to the labour market, but those who have been without a job for a long time. People find that the developments of technology and industry have overtaken them because they were not trained in the necessary skills. That is a waste and a tragedy.
    Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Is the hon. Lady making a pledge that the Labour party will find the money to increase the training budget?
    Miss Lestor: That is an interesting question. It has saddened me over the years that the Government have always found the money—be it very little—to pay people not to work. Armies of unemployed people are dependent on social security and many are hard up. However, when people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, who pointed to the needs of the country, suggest that we put money into training people to work, the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asks what money we shall use. The Government have wasted millions of pounds in revenue from North sea oil by telling people not to work and that there is no job for them. When hon. Members ask such questions they should consider reality.
    The Government have talked about regional assistance, but, in the north-west region, preferential assistance has been cut by 80 per cent. since 1978—the largest cut in any region. As the hon. Member for Pendle said, the north-west has suffered from a deep decline in traditional industries that have not been replaced. Rather than invest, as is our policy, the Government have made cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston referred to the job losses in our area and the fact that thousands of people have been put out of work. Jobs have been lost at Pilkington, in British Rail Engineering Ltd., in Bass, Marconi and British Aerospace in my constituency. Those skills will have been lost should those jobs ever return.
    An important by-product of the recession in the north-west and in many other parts of the country is its effects on the young. A survey by Birmingham education department and the Low Pay Unit recently came up with the horrific figure that 43 per cent. of children in this country—some of them aged 10 but many others aged 11 or 12—are working illegally in supermarkets, garages, hairdressers, retail shops, takeaway outlets and so on. It is

    519
    appalling that the Government have allowed that to happen by failing to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973. They have repealed legislation that protects young people. The Government have allowed illegal working because it is a way of ensuring that the kids of the unemployed can work. They are being exploited and the Government are keeping quiet about that and will not protect them. That is absolutely disgraceful.
    The Government say that they are the party of experience and of industry and that they understand such things because that is their background. However, the people of this country, particularly those in the north-west where there are many marginal seats, will say that, if the country has got into such a state under those men and women of experience, they should be replaced by those who have been out of power for so many years, but who understand what they have suffered and know how to put it right.
    7.44 pm
    Mr. Ray Whitney: The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) gave us just one positive glimmer of Labour party policy, which was the need for training. The hon. Lady should know that the Government have increased expenditure on training in real terms by two and a half times from what it was under the previous Labour Government. We have a proud record. One can add to that the amount that is spent on training by industry itself —and I have to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) on this, because he grossly underrated the amount spent by industry. That figure is, by definition, not calculable, but it is at least £20 billion and it could be as much as £30 billion.
    The hon. Lady, for the most part, followed her hon. Friend, the well-known doomster from Dunfermline, the hon. Member for Dunfermline. East (Mr. Brown) in denigrating British industry and the British economy. We are of course all accustomed to that, but the sad aspect is the damage that he does outside the House through his remarks.
    The point of the debate is not whether there has or has not been a recession. Of course there has been a recession in virtually all parts of the industrialised world. We have to identify the true position in Britain and get away from the fog of doom and gloom of the Labour party. We then have to consider which policies offer us the best way out. That is difficult, because we have heard nothing from Labour Members about their policies.
    The Opposition choose to ignore the situation in the rest of the world and the transformation that has occurred in this country since 1979. It utilises the sad national propensity to denigrate ourselves. We all suffer and understand the problems created by the media and the fact that good news ain't news: bad news is news. The intellectuals rush to spread the bad news as quickly as possible.
    In 1979, a group of 16 left-wing economists published a book entitled "Is Britain dying?". Of course, there were 16 answers of yes. In 1981, a group of 365 left-wing economists asked a similar question.
    Mr. Irvine Patnick (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Three hundred and sixty-four.
    Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Again, those economists got the answer wrong. Now, the latest pundits such as Jeremy Paxman—socialists to a man and woman—have seen their theories collapse. Socialism has collapsed throughout the world, and all they can do is attack the free-market economy.
    Such economists and the Opposition are harming Britain, but reality is very different. Everyone understands that, despite today's difficulties, management skills are stronger and management direction and industrial relations are very much better. In the 12 months to November 1991, only 800,000 days were lost in strikes, compared with an annual average of 13 million days in the 1970s. We all remember the winter of discontent and the fact that, during the last 12 months of the last Labour Government, more days were lost in strikes than during the whole of the past five years. That is the background.
    We have heard much of profitability and it is important to put on the record the fact that the profitability of British industry has increased. The latest "Economic Situation" report of the Confederation of British Industry pointed out that the United Kingdom's profitability rose markedly in the 1980s and that profit margins in the United Kingdom appeared to rise faster since 1980 than in either France or Germany. That is a fact which we do not hear from the denigrator of Dunfermline or any of his hon. Friends, but it is a fact.
    The average annual increase in inward investment in Britain in the 1980s was 6·8 per cent. The average in the other G7 countries was 4£6 per cent. Such facts are either not known or not recognised by Labour Members. But because they are a reality, inward investment into Britain is so much higher—from Japan, the United States, and even from Germany—than investment into other EC countries.
    The investing countries know that they have in Britain a positive and beneficial climate for industry. That fact is unrecognisable from the gloomy picture that is always painted by Labour Members. Despite the problems of recent years, there has been in Britain a net increase of 420,000 new businesses since 1979. No wonder the benefits of investing here are recognised, as are the results of the measures that the Government have taken to control inflation.
    The next step forward—we must be positive, because we can expect nothing positive from the Opposition—must involve creating confidence. As many independent commentators, from the Governor of the Bank of England downwards, agree, the basic work has been done and the right conditions set. We must now continue to build up confidence so that the savings that people are now accumulating will result in a demand-led recovery.
    We constantly hear the siren voices of Opposition Members echoing the cheap way out—devaluation—but Governments of both complexions since the war have tried that policy, and each time it has failed. An article in The Economist of 4 January 1992 was headed "The whine about sterling." It concluded that
    "the best hope of getting both prizes—lower interest rates and lower inflation—is for Britons to stop whining. If the markets were convinced that sterling would never be devalued, the pound would quickly rise."
    I am certain of that. But the one way to ensure that it would not happen would be for the whining voices among the Opposition to be heard and, heaven forbid, for Labour

    521
    Members to be elected to power. That would be the way to destroy all hope of fulfilling the glowing prospects that, with the sound basis that we have created, beckon Britain in the 1990s.
    I hope that responsible Opposition Members will in future have a care. They should not seek to alarm their constituents by making cheap political points in the election campaign. They should have a sense of responsibility over what has been achieved, for we need recognition of our successes and the prospects that lie ahead.
    7.53 pm
    Mr. Paul Flynn: We have heard much in the debate and elsewhere about inward investment. We have heard not a word about, and there is no measure of, outward divestment. It is similar to trying to fill a bath with water and failing to notice that the drain plug is out.
    In my constituency during the last year, and even today, we are witnessing the outward divestment of jobs overseas. A year ago, there were 850 jobs in Newport at Inmos Ltd. Today there are 450, and we have heard that, unless there is a massive investment programme, Inmos will close. What we are experiencing at Inmos is a kind of extended moonlight flit. Millions of pounds' worth of equipment has been moved abroad, along with key personnel, and while 400 jobs in the assembly department still exist, they are now in Malta and Malaysia.
    Hon. Members will recall that Inmos was established as an investment of taxpayers' money to guarantee a British stake in high technology. Inmos had a remarkable record of survival and success in that highly competitive market. The transputer—the computer on a chip—was a quantum leap forward in semiconductor technology, and it is entirely British-designed and British-made.
    As long ago as 1989, Inmos was selling 50,000 of the chips for about £50 million, a substantial sum but still only a small part of the £2 billion annual market for personal computers. In 1989, the first generation of transputer chips formed the smart nucleus of Japanese video telephones. They are used in the laser printers that are used in large numbers, in the House and elsewhere, and in the American space programme. The chip inside that equipment was not made in Osaka or California but designed in Bristol and manufactured in Newport.
    The second generation of the transputer, the T-9000, was launched in April of last year and is manufactured in Newport. It is 10 times faster than its predecessor and is poised for mass sales, in collaboration with IBM, for a galaxy of exciting new uses, such as in colour fax machines, medical diagnostic equipment, high resolution personal computers and the amazing three-dimensional computers known as virtual reality.
    Skin diseases, speech defects and diabetic blindness can easily be diagnosed and monitored with the help of computers fitted with transputers. They have other mundane uses for the mass markets, such as in controlling washing machines, in fuel injection systems of cars and in many military and defence uses. The transputer is now one of the most widely used processors. It was the first to offer the parallel computing equivalent of the power of supercomputers. A stunning fact about the British transputer is that it can carry out 200 million instructions per second.
    522
    The development has had some support from the Government and from the Esprit programme, but we are seeing jobs falling away because nobody is defending them. We shall find the French-Italian company, SGS Thomson—it has taken over the company, although it has no interest in it; it is a nationalised organisation under the control of the French and Italian Governments—taking action which will result in this miracle chip, which was created through the investment of British taxpayers' money and the innovative genius of British scientists, being manufactured overseas.
    After a month of speculation, Inmos today announced that, unless there is a massive investment programme, the Newport factory will be closed and manufacture of the T-9000 will be transferred to Texas, France or Sicily. Two other fabrication centres have been established as part of the Thomson empire.
    Electronics Weekly of 29 January last reported an industry analyst as having said that transferring the production technique, known as Elite, from Newport to three other sites
    "seals Newport's fate … That pretty well puts the final nail in Newport's coffin."
    That is a dire warning for my constituents.
    The Inmos story is ideological. Instead of a judicious mix of free companies operating in the market, with Government intervention where appropriate—it is absolutely appropriate in Europe, because the French, Italian and other Governments defend their industries to a degree that we do not—the Inmos story is descending into tragedy.
    It was born as an innovative, far-sighted, bold venture by the last Labour Government. It was shunned by the Thatcher Government, with their arm's-length disdain. They were always blind to its marvellous potential, so they neglected it and starved it of investment. Finally, they abandoned it and sold it at a knockdown price to the multinational company, SGS Thomson. We are now experiencing a crisis, the seeds of which were sown by the blind folly of that Government. The French and Italian Governments have a different view of how to treat their industries and we now know that, especially the Italians, are offering a rich investment in Inmos. That is why the company will be swallowed up by that fat, multinational company.
    Inmos—a British invention, created by British genius and British work—has been left defenceless in the cut-throat competition of international trade. Unless the Government act immediately, Britain will lose for ever a dearly bought, irreplaceable lead in the phenomenal world of tommorow's miraculous technology.
    8.1 pm
    Mr. James Cran: The many industrialists I know in all sectors and regions of the country will be disappointed with the manner in which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) introduced the debate. Many of them will regard it as a smidgen too flippant and funny, and a wee bit too long on rhetoric rather than on the facts that they want to hear in a considered judgment about industry's problems and opportunities.
    Because the Opposition has made serious charges in the motion, I did the same as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—I went to the CBI. In the CBI news of October 1991 I found an article entitled "All sectors and regions expect upturn next year"—in other words, in 1992.

    523
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East places confidence in the CBI and so do I. I believe what it says about what will happen in 1992.
    To be clear about what the business community believes, I shall quote from the first paragraph of that article:
    "A survey of firms' plans for the year ahead shows that all industries in all regions of Britain expect 1992 to see an upturn in business next year."
    That was not a small survey of industrial opinion but covered 685 firms in 18 major sectors of the United Kingdom.
    I then checked my region of Humberside or, as we like to call it, east Yorkshire. The Humberside Economic News for January 1992 says:
    "the County of Humberside looks to the future with optimism having just won one of the largest inward investments of 1991 with the announcement by Kimberly-Clark of their intention to build a 750 job paper products factory at Barton-upon-Humber."
    I could quote other paragraphs from that economic review but, essentially, it is extremely optimistic. It concludes:
    "Recession in the UK and the US, and the political changes in Europe, have all contributed to lower investment horizons but Humberside continues to be resilient."
    I note that Opposition Front-Bench Members are not listening—perhaps they do not want to.
    Humberside Economic News was not produced by Conservative central office, or by me. Had I produced it, Opposition Members would have questioned me. It is produced by Labour-controlled Humberside county council, and it is perfectly clear that it does not support the Opposition motion. Rather, it leads one to examine what is really happening in British industry. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not deal with that. He told many funny anecdotes and made many funny allusions to advertising companies but he did not deal with what Opposition Members are fond of discussing—manufacturing industry.
    I have a large manufacturing company in my constituency—British Aerospace. The aerospace and defence industry in this country has achieved annual sales of £13 billion and a positive trade balance in 1990 of £1·1 billion. That industry is the second largest of its kind on the globe, beaten only by the United States. I wonder how industrialists and members of the work force in aerospace and defence companies throughout the country will regard the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. I know perfectly well that most of them will think that they cannot go to Opposition Members for support because they simply run industry down time and again, and it has happened again this evening.
    I should have liked to ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East why Rolls-Royce, for instance—a superb company by any standards—has quadrupled its share of world markets for jet engines since 1987. It did not achieve that out of thin air but because it has a superb management and work force and because the Government are creating an economic environment in which the company can make such achievements. The Opposition may say that, rather than quadrupling its share of world markets it should have increased it by five or six times. Let us hear how they would achieve that. We are proud to be
    524
    able to say that that company, under a Conservative Government, quadrupled its share of the market in jet engines.
    I could mention other companies in that sector, such as Dowty, GEC, Lucas, Smiths Industries and Westland, all of which are world leaders. I do not call them world leaders. Rather, the latest document on manufacturing produced by the CBI does so. Indeed, their competitors in other countries also know that they are world leaders. It is a pity that the Opposition do not know that.
    I had intended to mention motor vehicles, but I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) wishes to speak, and I would not dream of intruding on what he will say because he is more expert than I. Instead, I shall speak about the mechanical engineering sector, which is a £32 billion industry. In 1990, 40 per cent. of its output was exported. It has a trade surplus with the European Community and a positive worldwide balance of £2·5 billion. Should we not be proud of such a record? I know that my hon. Friends are proud of it and I want to hear what Opposition Members have to say about it. They have not mentioned the achievements of the mechanical engineering industry, because it does not suit their book to do so. It is a successful sector.
    The mechanical engineering sector has seen the resurgence of the machine tool industry to the extent that it is now the seventh largest in the world. Specialist magazines on that subject show that British machine tool technology leads every company in the world in sensors, grinding techniques for jet engine blades and laser-cutting techniques. Again, it did not suit Opposition Members to mention those facts.
    I could mention chemical and many other sectors, but I do not have the time. I simply wish to illustrate that British companies have, in the past 13 years, undertaken a major restructuring programme. They were fat, flabby and inefficient in terms of world markets, and that is no longer the case.
    In the early 1980s, ICI's return on assets was below 10 per cent., which was an utter disgrace by any international standards. In the second half of the 1980s, that increased to 20 per cent. on average return on capital employed. That was achieved under a Conservative Government.
    British Steel was suffering from an advanced case of rigor mortis. Now it is privatised and is one of the most capable and efficient deliverers of steel products. Its pre-tax profits for 1989–90 were about £773 million. Why do not we hear about that from Opposition spokesmen? The reason is that it does not suit them, because they want to run down British companies and British industries by devious means. They think that, if they say something often enough outside this place, someone may believe them and vote Labour. I am merely trying to show that British industry has a lot to shout about, and Conservatives are doing the shouting.
    I have heard much tommy-rot today on the subject of regional policy. It is easy for Opposition spokesmen to say, "Let's have regional policy." What does that mean? It simply means that, in the 20 years between 1964 and 1984, successive Governments spent £20 billion on regional policy to create a net 500,000 jobs, for about £40,000 each. They were like snow on a spring day—here today and gone tomorrow. If Opposition Members want to pontificate on regional policy, I should like to hear something novel, not a regurgitation of policies that have failed in the past.

    525
    I am ebullient about the future of British industry, but only if we have a Conservative Government. If a Labour Government get into power, we will be back to the days of 1970s and failure.
    8.12 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The brilliance of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been underscored by the simple fact that not one Conservative Member could bring himself or herself to say a word of praise of the speech of the Secretary of State. That tells us all we want to know.
    What has emerged from the debate is that there is a recession, and it has been made worse by Government policies, from which we in Scotland are clearly suffering. The Prime Minister and his colleagues are in an undignified rush to find the maximum number of countries that are in difficulties. Even when they try to identify them, they list countries such as Japan and end up with egg on their faces. Any time now, I expect the Prime Minister to start complaining about bad economic circumstances in the republic of Bolivia—even then, I am not sure that the comparison would stand the Government in good stead.
    In the remarkable performance of the Secretary of State —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The judgment of Conservative Members on such matters is well known to the House and to the country, so the intervention does not come as a surprise. The remarkable speech of the Secretary of State contained a reference to the film industry, an important sector of British industry. If ever there was a dismissive reference, that was it. That industry was promised so much—the present Home Secretary said that it would have a renaissance, but it is not producing as many films as it did after the war.
    It is also clear that there is a recession in Scotland, where unemployment in December 1991 stood at 227,000 —26,500 more unemployed than a year ago. We are talking about people, families and communities such as mine in Strathkelvin and Monklands district.
    I asked my two local district councils for up-to-date information on their problems. I should love to quote everything they said, but time would not allow me to do so, even if I were not limited to 10 minutes. Strathkelvin district council said:
    "In October 1991 total unemployment in Strathkelvin stood at 2767 which represented an increase of 23·9 per cent. over the year. The figure for December rose to 2857, ie. approx. 8·4 per cent."
    In the past year, a list of recent redundancies have been effecting the Monklands district. Conservative Members almost seem to ask us to believe that such a scene does not exist. However, there have been redundancies in William Purdie, Henry Bannerman, Shanks and McEwan, Terex, R. B. Tennant, MSA, Cobalt UK, Honeywell Bull, Geest, Tibbit and Britten Ltd., Lambertons, Lane Orthopaedics and Alexandria Workware. In addition, there has been the spin-off from the appalling announcement about Ravenscraig. If such statistics do not reflect a recession, I do not know what does. Earlier, we were asked to rely on the record of British Steel, but it was that company which said that it had brought forward the proposals for Ravenscraig by two years due to economic circumstances. Who created those economic circumstances?
    The references to the Confederation of British Industry do not seem to have included what we know to be its views
    526
    in Scotland. The "Scottish Quarterly Industrial Trends Survey" produced by the CBI in January showed that the recession in Scotland remained severe and that what signs there may have been of recovery had, if anything, disappeared, not become stronger.
    The survey reported:
    "General business confidence and export optimism have deteriorated markedly over the past four months … Profit margins continue to be squeezed".
    It continued:
    "Investment intentions in plant and machinery have worsened since October".
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East and others referred to those simple facts, they were giving an accurate account of what was happening in our constituencies. We would be failing in our duty if we did not draw such factors to the attention of the House and offer the Labour party's alternatives.
    The steel industry has been decimated, but where are the proposals for manufacturing? Ravenscraig is being closed and Gartcosh in my constituency still stands idle. One reason for that is that the paper recycling plant on which so many hopes were based cannot get off the ground due to Government policies and high interest rates.
    The House underestimates at its peril the problems that we in Scotland face. I am sorry that no SNP members seem to be present, but their policies, particularly during the recession and the economic nightmare that the Tories have provided for us, are most uninviting. Industry will not be helped by separatism and a separate Scottish currency. It will not be helped by export papers and documents having to be exchanged at the borders of our two countries. Above all, industry will not be helped by separated interest rates to which the SNP policy of independence will inevitably lead.
    Dr. John Reid: Where is the Scottish National party today?
    Mr. Clarke: SNP Members are absent during a vital debate on unemployment and the recession in Scotland —a debate which is about more than mere slogans. The European Community is moving towards economic and monetary union. Therefore, for the SNP to argue for a separate currency seems to be an argument more suited to the 19th than the 20th century.
    I believe that Scottish people will consider such matters sincerely. It cannot be good for Scottish industry to cut the home market from 55 million to 5 million, and to make England simply a foreign market. That is a high price to pay. I prefer the alternatives that the Labour party offers, which include a Scottish parliament able to deal with these matters in a more informed way than has been obvious from the remarks of Conservative Members this evening.
    During these difficult times, we demand a strategy for investment, for manufacturing and for exporting. Our growth rates do not begin to compare with those of Germany, France, Italy and Spain. There must be a new commitment to investment and training; it is that commitment which Labour policies represent.
    The right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—who still seems to have some support on the Conservative Benches, but very little elsewhere, promised a property-owning democracy, among other things. I must tell those who still applaud the right hon. Lady that people in my constituency who face high interest rates and whose businesses are going to the

    527
    wall, not to mention high mortgage rates and the consequent repossessions, are looking for the same sort of apology from the right hon. Lady that the chief executive of TV-am received from her when she had the decency to write to him to say that she did not expect that her policies would lead to the outcome that emerged.
    The alternatives offered in this debate are clear: stagnation with the Tories, with all the unemployment, poverty and deprivation that go with it, or progress with Labour. In the coming months, the people of Scotland and Britain will make the inevitable choice, and will go forward with Labour.
    8.21 pm
    Mr. Roger King: It is a funny thing, but detectives always say that the villain who has committed a crime will inevitably turn up sooner or later at the scene of his crime. I cannot say how true that is generally, but it is certainly true in politics.
    The evidence of this is that, after 12 years of Conservative government, the shadow Chancellor and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) came to my constituency as part of Labour's "Buy British" programme, a programme designed to endorse investment in training and manufacturing. These two came to my constituency to visit the Rover plant, the former home of Red Robbo, of trade unionism run riot, of overproduction, dereliction, nationalisation and the virtual destruction of the motor industry. They came, they saw and they said that it was absolutely tremendous—the company had invested; it had new training programmes; it had an advanced form of productivity and of relations between management and workers. It represented the way forward, in fact.
    Rover is not, however, an isolated example. The same thing is happening throughout the length and breadth of the country. If only the Opposition would get out and visit our businesses and factories and see the enormous changes that have taken place over the years, they would learn that Rover is not alone.
    We know that the Opposition are no friends of the British motor industry—certainly no friends of Rover. Only a few days ago, when the European Court of Justice referred the £44 million-worth of sweeteners back to Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, I was thrilled to death, because Rover and British Aerospace need the money and were certainly the innocent parties in that transaction. But the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East criticised the Commissioner, saying that he was negligent and incompetent—and he criticised the Government for being negligent. So he wants the money to be paid back. He wants to draw it out of Rover and British Aerospace even though it is being used for investment in new models and new jobs. The hon. Gentleman is clearly no friend of ours and nor is the Labour party.
    Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. King: No, I am short of time, and the hon. Gentleman, not surprisingly, will not like what I have to say.
    Rarely can a country have been blessed with a second chance like the one that the Government have given this country, in the form of the British motor industry. The
    528
    Economist intelligence unit has said that the like of the improvement has not been seen for 40 years, as investment programmes increase and accelerate and provide the jobs and factories for people to work in over the next few years.
    I offer in evidence the findings of Professor Garel Rhys, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders professor of motor industry economics, who has calculated the scale of the advances being made in the British car industry. The total 1990 output from our manufacturers Rover, Ford, Vauxhall, Peugeot and Jaguar amounted to 1,290,000 units. The professor has forecast that, by the year 2000, that will have risen to 1,950,000 units. Meanwhile, the new producers, Nissan, Toyota and Honda, produced no more than 106,000 cars in 1990—they were all produced by Nissan—but by the year 2000 this group will be producing just under 1 million units. All that means that the car industry in Britain will be producing about 3 million cars a year by the turn of the century—up from a low of just under 900,000 units a few years ago. That is a tremendous improvement, sure proof that under the Conservative Government the right investment decisions have been made.
    This improvement has come about because we have been able to embrace much of the technology that the Japanese have given us in the form of manufacturing techniques for lean production, which makes our manufacturing units more efficient and more effective. The process has permeated the suppliers to our great motor industry as well. World players such as Lucas Automotive, SKN, BBA, Turner and Newall and BTR are the equal of any European component manufacturers. With the opportunity to supply the expanding British car sector, they will certainly remain world players for a long time to come.
    The recession should not deter the industry's plans for advancing, but we look forward to a helpful Budget to accelerate that advance. Our economy is much more car-fuelled than it was in the past. We need new sorts of cars for a greener world—they are essential for environmental improvement.
    We have achieved all this by means of a number of devices. First, we reformed the trade unions. We reformed working practices, and we gave people a stake in their future through home ownership, higher take-home pay and tax reductions, which are essential to motivate working people.
    We have reduced company taxation and we have accelerated our training programmes. The process will continue by establishing exchange rate stability so that we can expand our export market, which is up by 50 per cent. in the past 12 months alone. We need to embark on further cuts in taxation to stimulate the economy further and produce more customers for our products.
    The Opposition claim that to get out of any recession we need an investment-led expansion programme and more training. What we really need is more customers to buy the products. If there are more customers, the training programmes and investment will automatically follow—British manufacturing will make sure of that.
    We want lower interest rates and we are achieving them. We need low inflation, and we are certainly achieving that. The contrast between 1979, when we inherited inflation that had risen to 25 per cent., and today is stark. We have got inflation down to 4·5 per cent., and it will be even lower. What a contrast that is with what Labour offers the country. It offers us nothing at all.

    529
    The Opposition want to adopt a minimum wage which will have a colossal impact on differentials in British industry as people try to readjust their incomes accordingly. Labour has no commitment to a road-building programme. The British car industry needs its products to arrive at the factory doors on time; we need good roads for that.
    The Opposition would further increase taxation on the car. They would increase personal taxation, which would have a disastrous effect on those working on the shop floor who might put in some overtime and find themselves being taxed heavily for the privilege. The Opposition would create so-called regional development agencies, which would act as a wet blanket over investment decisions. They would endeavour to pick winners, which would mean that one company's handout was another company's tax bill.
    The Opposition would end flexible working by embracing the social charter and restricting the number of hours that people can work in a week if they choose to. That would only play into the hands of our European competitiors, who are envious of our more efficient working practices.
    If we try to embrace the ideals of the Labour party we will find ourselves unable to compete for inward investment. Labour talks about an investment-led recovery, but, as I have already said, the only recovery that really counts is the one that the customer will bring with him by buying the products that we make.
    Finally, the Labour party would abolish the uniform business rate, which has done an enormous amount to stabilise costs. If it were not in position, small and large businesses would be held hostage. Many Labour councils, uncapped and free to spend what they liked, would, of course, turn to business and extract every last shekel which would otherwise have gone to investment and development.
    The opportunities for this country have never been greater. We are at the beginning of a period of substantial expansion of our motor industry. The track record over the past few years shows that it has been producing the right quality of product for the customer in the home market as well as the export market. We hope that the Government will look very carefully at Budget proposals, so that a cut in the 10 per cent. special car tax will stimulate those very important car market sales.
    It may interest the House to know that, unfortunately, the January car sales figures show a 6 per cent. decline in home market sales compared with the same period in 1991. Indeed, January's sales this year were the lowest since 1981. Much of that is offset by very much greater export sales, as a result of export-led production, but, if we want to capitalise on the tremendous opportunities offered by this inward investment, largely fuelled by Japan, but also by multinationals in this country, we have to ensure that there is a good, growing and strong home market. If we can achieve that, and I am confident that we can, we can usher in a new economic future of great significance for us all.
    8.31 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) in that economic nonsense except to ask this: if there has been such an economic miracle and the Government have done such wonderful things, why are we in such a
    530
    mess now? Why are we in a recession that is generally agreed to be becoming, if it has not already become, the worst recession since the war?
    This has been a depressing depression debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) gave a brilliant analysis of the nature of the problem, but all the Minister could counter with, like a petrified parrot, was that the position would be worse under Labour. He went on to chant that mantra throughout his speech. He was a pathetic spectacle.
    The Minister did not explain why we went into the recession earlier and got in deeper than any other country. He held out no hope to the unemployed, rapidly increasing in number, or to companies hanging on and struggling not to go bankrupt with the banks squeezing them in the most monstrous fashion. Small businesses have been betrayed by the banks. He held out no hope for anybody of any possibility of a recovery. All he could offer us was Micawbernomics—wait and see. If we go on squeezing inflation and get it down to graveyard levels, he said, there might, eventually, be some recovery.
    To say recovery will come with low inflation is absolute nonsense. At this time we need some increase in prices, just as we did in the 1930s. There was an interesting article in the Financial Times on Monday, with Anthony Harris pointing out that Roosevelt proposed a toast and popped out the champagne when prices began to rise, because prices need to rise if manufacturing and industry in general are to make a profit. That is the trouble at the moment. Companies are exporting, but not at a profit. They are just struggling to keep going. They are throwing overboard research, design, development and investment—everything that we need, in order to survive. They have to generate a profit, and that means that we need an increase in prices.
    That is the central issue that is not being faced in this debate. If we are to recover from this recession, there has to be a reduction in interest rates and in the exchange rate. the central problem now is the balance of payments. If the balance of payments is high in a recession, as it is, it will be disastrous in any expansion. We cannot have expansion unless we get the exchange rate down. A competitive exchange rate is the only way to channel resources into investment, into industry and into closing the balance-of-payments gap.
    The only way out is to use the price mechanism to make exports more competitive and cheaper, to make imports dearer, and, most important, to allow industry to generate a profit on the basis of which it can expand and grow. That is the only solution to the problem. Without an expansion of demand and without channelling that demand to manufacturing in this country by making production in this country profitable, which at the present exchange rate it is not, there cannot be a recovery. We have to make it pay to produce in this country. We have to allow manufacturing to generate a profit.
    Unfortunately, too, by entering the exchange rate mechanism at an overvalued rate, which was 20 per cent. overvalued in real terms against the deutschmark on the last quarter of 1986 and about 40 per cent. against the dollar, we made it impossible for industry to generate a profit, and nailed the lid down on the recession. We have tied ourselves to the German economic cycle. The Germans want to deflate, and we need to expand. We have forced industry to cut jobs, to cut investment, to struggle

    531
    just to survive, to try to regain the competitiveness it has lost through the exchange rate. Companies have to run faster just to stand still, and it cannot be done.
    There is an analogy in the relationship between America and Japan. America is in substantial deficit with Japan. Japan is gaining an increasing hold on the American market and taking over an increasing number of American industries and companies. In that situation, America would be regarded as a little bit daft if it went in for a full single market with the Japanese; it would be regarded as insane if it had a common exchange rate with the Japanese; and it would be regarded as totally lunatic if it entered that exchange rate with an overvalued dollar. Yet that is exactly what we have done with our major competitor, Germany, with which we are in the same situation as the Americans are with Japan. That is the analogy, and that is the trap in which we have landed ourselves.
    The result must be disaster. It must mean that deflation and recession now become a way of life. This is part of a necessary downsizing—the need to squeeze us out of dollar markets and into focusing on the European market. It means a sustained balance of payments deficit. That cannot be brought down at this exchange rate. It means a sustained fiscal deficit, because unemployment will rise, Government spending will have to go up and tax receipts will go down as profits fall and people are put out of work.
    We are already talking of a public sector borrowing requirement next year of over £20 billion—an underestimate, in my view. One can see the horrors to come in that situation. It means cuts in the standard of living, because industry is unable to support it. It means that we suffer in terms of trade, because the basic staple of trade is still manufactured goods. We need to produce them and to export more of them. It means that we are cutting back on our industry.
    The drive motor of our economy is being deeply damaged by the prevailing economics in this country. Indeed, it is being ruined. We are losing jobs in manufacturing. Every plant we close, every job we lose, every bit of production that is lost in this country, means a worse balance of payments problem later because we shall be importing more.
    We are not only in a hole; we are digging it deeper by the way that the economy is run. Nobody can make water flow uphill, no matter how hard he may try. The exchange rate is not a phallic symbol, so that we are proud when it is hard. It is not a test of our enthusiasm for Europe; it is not a means of disciplining the economy, like the dominatrix's whip. It is simply a market-clearing mechanism. It has to be brought down to competitive levels if we are to produce in this country, if we are to invest in this country, if we are to make a profit in this country, if we are to rebuild the industrial base on which everything rests, which provides the jobs and pays our way in the world, which generates the surplus for investment and for public spending and on which all depends. That base is now shrinking. It is already dangerously near the limits of viability. If this recession is allowed to go on, if no action is taken, disaster lies ahead.
    We are in exactly the same situation as in the 1920s, when we went back to the gold standard at an overvalued rate. Every pundit, every party, every economist, told us,
    532
    then as now, that the exchange rate was not important, that it was a means of maintaining discipline and of forcing industry to cut its costs. The consequences were ruinous and eventually we were forced, in 1931, to abandon that exchange rate.
    We shall again be forced to abandon it. I want to avert the damage that would be done; the ruin that would be brought down on viable companies that might be forced out of business; the closing of pits, steel plants, and other industrial plants; and the ending of other forms of production—all of which would be viable with a competitive exchange rate—just to keep this country tied to an overvalued exchange rate mechanism. That way lies disaster.
    8.39 pm
    Mr. Michael Irvine: In Victorian times, my great grandfather was a Free Church minister in a village not 25 miles from Dunfermline. As I listened to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in full denunciation, it crossed my mind that the tradition of hellfire sermons in Fife is still alive and strong. However, while all good hellfire sermons were full of denunciation and wit—as was the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—the best of them placed some emphasis on the positive, and that was lacking from the hon. Gentleman's speech.
    It would have been a better speech had the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East recognised that, between 1981 and 1989, this country enjoyed eight years of sustained economic growth, during which manufacturing output rose by 25 per cent. overall. That was the longest period of sustained economic growth since the war.
    It would have been better also if the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East had said more about productivity. Over that same period, productivity in British manufacturing industry rose by 50 per cent. Associated with the rise in productivity was a significant investment surge—particularly towards the end of that term.
    That strong investment growth and substantial increase in productivity lie at the heart of the success that British exporters are enjoying today, at a time of considerable world recession, in maintaining and increasing this nation's share of world trade.
    The other feature of the hon. Gentleman's speech was his consistent failure to say much about Labour policy. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was mighty good on the negative, but when it came to the positive, we heard hardly a whisper.
    Mr. David Evans: The hon. Gentleman said nothing positive.
    Mr. Irvine: He did, in that he made a few dangerous positive remarks to which I shall refer later.
    I suspect that if, heaven forbid, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East found himself Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he would be tempted to meddle. Governments of any colour are always tempted to do that, but this Government have been better at resisting that temptation than many others. Labour Governments in particular are tempted to meddle, and their meddling is usually dangerous.
    There would be pressure on a Labour Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his colleagues to pick winners and to back projects for which commercial support could

    533
    not be found. We all know how dangerous and expensive it can he for the taxpayer and the country when Governments are sucked into high-cost, commercially unviable ventures.
    That apart, there would be even more dangerous party pressures on the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, as Secretary of State, to assist declining industries, prop up uncompetitive companies, and frustrate necessary but difficult commercial decisions. Consequently, companies in the new industries that are looking to the future, and on which this country will depend in the next century, would have to pay to meet the costs imposed on an incoming Labour Government under pressure to implement the policies that I have described.
    There would he a further danger. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) said that there was nothing positive in the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, but he concluded by mentioning regional aid.
    Mr. Dewar: Excellent.
    Mr. Irvine: The word "excellent" echoes across the Chamber from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). That confirms that Labour is strong on regional aid. It always has been—but regional aid has its dangers. Labour all too often forgets the harmful effect that regional policies can have on companies in, for example, East Anglia and the south of England, which fall outside the scope of regional assistance.
    My constituency of Ipswich is an East Anglian town which has the advantage of a well-balanced economy. It is strong in the financial services sector, but also boasts a significant manufacturing sector, whose companies could all too easily be put at risk by irresponsible, over-vigorous regional policies.
    Ipswich industrialists already complain that, from time to time, insubstantial companies establish themselves in parts of the country that lure them with generous regional assistance, grants, and other inducements. They find themselves in competition with well-established, effective companies in other places—such as Ipswich, the rest of East Anglia, and the south of England—to which such grants and inducements are not available.
    In other words, the established companies are subject to unfair competition, with the consequence that their profit margins are pared, they are forced to put back their investment plans, and they are compelled to postpone export drives, to beat off what is essentially unfair competition.
    I am not against all regional policy, because there is a place for it—but if it is too vigorous and gives too much weight to political pressures from areas of the country where Labour is strong, it can inflict a lot of damage on companies and their employees in parts of the country that do not receive regional aid and other inducements.
    What industry really needs is not intervention, or assistance of the kind that Labour would proffer. It needs an economic climate in which profitability is encouraged, industrial achievements are recognised and given full credit, Governments do not frustrate sensible commercial decisions and unnecessary, nitpicking, expensive bureaucratic restrictions and requirements are not imposed. With such a framework and economic environment, industry
    534
    will prosper; and I believe that a Conservative Government would be far more likely to provide them than a Labour Government.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Thomas Graham: It is clear to me that Ministers are conning their Back Benchers. We are facing a general election, and I have no doubt that many Conservative Members will never be back here after that. If they continue to be hoodwinked by Ministers, they are heading for an ignominious defeat. I am also amazed to note that the Opposition Benches are empty of Liberal Members—and, moreover, of members of the Scottish National party, who claim to want to fight for Scotland.
    For years, I have pleaded with Ministers not to visit my constituency. Every time they do, a factory closes a week later, and 100 or 200 jobs are lost. I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on bended knee not to send Ministers to my constituency on propaganda visits, because I know that absolute disaster will result. Not long ago, after I had asked a Minister not to visit my constituency, lo and behold! he visited my constituency. What happened then? A factory went into liquidation, and hundreds of jobs were lost. The same thing happens every time Ministers visit my constituency.
    It is all very well to talk about recession; but let us consider what the word really means. Let us put a face to recession. A young lad in my constituency was training to become a baker. I know his father and mother, and I know him very well. The lad was enjoying his training, but his employer then forced him to work seven days a week. He was supposed to be paid £8 for working on Saturday and Sunday, but he could not get that £8. The owner of the company told him that he had no rights. "Take it or leave it," he said. "You will work, you will do what you are told and you will not answer back—and I am not paying you for working on Saturday and Sunday."
    The boy explained that he had to deal with some personal and private business on the coming Sunday, and that he would prefer not to work on that day. He was told that he must do so; when he persisted, he was fired.
    Such people have no rights. Their rights have been taken away by the Government. The recession has made things so hard that young people have no voice: they are so desperate to find jobs that they will take anything, on any conditions. That is exactly what the Government want. That is why they have stopped young people having any rights and any say in their conditions of employment. It is disgusting and disgraceful.
    Let me give another example. A security guard who spent 20 years in the armed forces and fought for his country is now unemployed. He used to work in the Talbot car factory, but it closed. What have the Government done to replace Talbot jobs in Scotland? Next to nothing.
    When the factory closed, the man obtained a job as a security guard in a Ministry of Defence Establishment. He was paid £1·85 an hour, and he had to bring up a young family on that wage. No hon. Member could do that; we spend more than that on drink here in half an hour.
    That man was fired because he tried to speak up for his rights. I have discovered that security guards in Ministry of Defence establishments at Coulport and Faslane are working not just 10 hours a day, but, in some cases, 30 or 40 hours consecutively. They are desperate for money—

    535
    which is not surprising, given that they are being paid £1·85 an hour. They are virtually having to sleep on the job. It is appalling that the Government are not giving them proper protection and proper rights. They refused to sign the European social contract, which would have saved that security guard a good deal of heartbreak and poverty. Can it be right that we are forcing men and women to work for such an unbelievably low rate—a poverty rate? Is that not incredible?
    Let me ask the Minister a question that I have asked other Ministers. Does he know the price of a pint of milk? Does he know the price of a loaf, a tin of beans, half a dozen eggs? Does he know what food costs? If he does not know that, he will never understand what he is imposing on men, women and young families.
    Because of the recession, many companies in my area simply do not know where they are going. They are now issuing short-term contracts. A big shop that had not been open for long was hit hard by the recession. It had expected not to do bad business; all of a sudden, it tore up the contracts and re-employed all the work force on short-term contracts.
    It gets worse. I have talked about a young man who was training to be a baker but who lost his job, and about a security guard paid only £1·85 an hour. Not long ago, my secretary was working in a catering job for £2·45 an hour. That was slave wages because she had to work around the clock. I wonder whether the Minister's wife would work for that sort of money. I am sure that no member of his family would work for such a wage. My secretary was forced to do so because of the prevailing economic circumstances caused by the Government's mismanagement of the economy.
    When the Government set up local employment centres, we were told that they would provide training for all the young people in Scotland, help us to face the 1990s and compete with the rest of the world. What happened? They cut the training budget by 33 per cent. They cut 33 per cent. off the budget in Renfrewshire. It is mind-boggling that they should claim to have introduced that panacea while still denying people proper training.
    I can supply the names of people for whom training was terminated and who were thrown on the scrap heap. I remember a Minister telling us from the Dispatch Box that the Government would guarantee training and a future job for every kid in Great Britain. It is absolutely—I am trying to use only parliamentary language, but it is difficult when I am talking about the problems in my area—it is disgraceful.
    Since the Government took office, over half the manufacturing jobs—166,000—have been lost in Strathclyde alone. The Minister simply keeps telling us that we are coming out of recession. In my constituency, the Talbot car factory has closed, India Tyres has closed, Caterpillar has closed, shipyards have been closed, Prestcold has closed and Howden has closed. The job losses run into thousands and industries are being decimated, but the Government still blunder on.
    The Prime Minister and the Chancellor say week after week that we are coming out of recession. They tell us that we are doing fine. They are like the two Ronnies. It is as if they are following a script from "Only Fools and
    536
    Horses". The Cabinet is full of a bunch of comedians and ham actors. We would be better off with Del Boy and Rodney running the country.
    In my area, the people are not a bunch of comedians or ham actors. The people of Renfrew, West and the rest of Scotland want the right to work. My area offers good people who are desperate for training. We offer good sites, good communications, a decent road system and good airports and sea ports. Yet the Government squander millions of lives by forcing them to stay on the dole.
    The Armitage Shanks factory in Barrhead in my constituency is world-renowned. It is closing. The Government are doing nothing but weep crocodile tears while that company abdicates its responsibility to the people who made it great.
    I may have made a few jocular comments, but this is no joke. It is no joke that young people in my area have no home for the future. It is disgraceful that the Government claim to want equality and a classless society while allowing young people from my area to sleep in miserable poverty on the streets of London.
    I am delighted that this is probably the last time in this Parliament that I shall face the Minister across the Dispatch Box. I am sure that, when faced with the ballot box, the young people of Scotland will know where the future lies. I am sure that they and the young people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland will know that the future lies with a Government committed to providing an opportunity for people to survive. We will provide an opportunity for people to develop and bring out their best. We will offer a caring society and give everyone the right to live decently, harmoniously and peacefully. Only a Labour Government will offer that.
    9.4 pm
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Anyone listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) today would think that everything was fine with British industry in the balmy days of the 1970s and that everything has gone wrong since. Let us inject a little fact.
    In the past four years, exports of manufactured goods rose by a quarter. The aerospace industry throughout the world has experienced problems, but in the 1980s and early 1990s ours substantially increased its share of world markets and recently overtook France to become the second largest in the world. Our pharmaceutical companies—the high-tech industry that we want—are the leading exporters in the world. In the 1980s, our manufacturing output and productivity rose faster than any other major European economy.
    Mr. Jimmy Hood: Absolutely untrue.
    Mr. Oppenheim: That is true. I shall happily give way if the hon. Gentleman has figures.
    Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Member tell the House how many manufacturing jobs we lost during the period to which he is referring?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman questioned whether manufacturing output and productivity had risen faster in Britain than in any other European country. The answer is that they rose faster in the 1980s than in any other major country. Manufacturing jobs in Britain have been lost in every decade since the war; 500,000

    537
    manufacturing jobs were lost and unemployment doubled under the previous Labour Government. [Laughter.] Before Labour Members get too carried away with their own self-righteousness, they should remember the record of their party when it was in office.
    Let me give Labour Members some facts. In the 1970s, British Steel made a loss of £15 billion. Every year, we had a £1 billion deficit in steel products, and British Steel was the largest loss maker in the world. In the past few years, we have had a £1 billion surplus a year in steel products, and British Steel is the most efficient steel industry.
    In the 1970s, all the multinational car makers were falling over themselves to move capacity from Britain to Europe. Ford and General Motors were moving component and engine plants from Britain and were importing many cars. General Motors, Ford and all the multinationals are now investing billions of pounds in new component and engine capacity and, for the first time in 20 years, are exporting significant numbers of cars. In addition, Japanese companies are making huge investment in this country.
    Mr. Jimmy Wray: Has not the hon. Gentleman got his figures wrong? Does he agree that it took the Government until 1988 to reach the manufacturing levels of 1979? What should I tell the people of the United Kingdom and Scotland when 2·5 million people are on the dole; when 180,000 people are homeless, 34,000 of them in Scotland; and when 10 million people are living in poverty, one in four of whom are children? How will we get out of the mess that the Government have got us into?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. Manufacturing output in Britain rose by 25 per cent. in the 1980s, but it fell under Labour. Those are not my figures or Government figures but are from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. If the hon. Gentleman denies them, he should have a word with the OECD.
    People who have lived in Amber Valley for a long time tell me that, in the 1960s and 1970s, when unemployment was higher under Labour, the area was broadly dependent on coal and old industries. The area now has a diverse high-tech manufacturing economy. Of course there are problems in the area and it is suffering from the recession, but there are more better-quality high-tech manufacturing jobs on a more diverse industrial base than in the 1960s and 1970s.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East had the cheek to mention miners who had been made redundant. Let me tell Labour Members what happened to redundant miners in my area when Labour was in power. More miners were made redundant in the 1960s and the 1970s under Labour than were ever made redundant under this Government, and they were given only a pittance in redundancy pay. At least, when men are made redundant from the mines now, it is done with dignity and they get a good amount of money, which never happened when Labour was in power. Labour disgracefully neglected miners who were made redundant. No amount of sanctimony, cant or moral indignation will let people in my area forget that important fact.
    During 45 minutes of bile which passed for a speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr.
    538
    Brown), there was not a single mention of the policies that any future Labour Government would pursue. The electorate is entitled to ask, where's the beef?
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the success of the Japanese economy. Let me tell Opposition Members that the Japanese economy has hardly succeeded through socialist policies. There has been little nationalisation. What little there was in the state sector has now been privatised. Japan has had low Government spending, low taxes and minimal taxes on savings. In Japan, unlike Britain, there have been few of the anti-business and anti-profit attitudes which have been fostered by Opposition Members. Above all, the Japanese have had a rigorous and vocationally oriented education system.
    Some Labour Members think that Government subsidies, through the Ministry for International Trade and Industry, have helped Japanese industry to success. That type of interventionist myth is popular among Opposition Members. They might be interested to know that Japanese industry has been subsidised less over the last 30 years than any other major industrial economy. Most of Japan's successful industries, like cars, robotics, electronics, photocopiers and information technology, have received virtually no help from MITI and the Japanese Government. Indeed, they generally spurn such help. Conversely, the least successful Japanese industries tend to be those which have had the most interference from Government.
    There are two reasons why the Japanese economy has done so well over the past 30 years. First and above all, the Japanese have had a sound, rigorous, vocationally oriented education system. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It is very distracting to have a second debate going on below the gangway.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Many Opposition Members have wandered in from too good a dinner. It might do them good to listen to what is being said rather than to behave like drunken, post-dinner idiots.
    The other main reason for Japan's success economically is that since the war, like Germany, it has consistently followed a sound monetary policy which has involved reasonable state spending, no budget deficits and the encouragement of savings. That is an important point at a time when the Opposition are proposing a policy of raising taxes on savers. It shows how little the Opposition have learnt over the past few years.
    High levels of savings reduce consumption and bear down on inflation and interest rates. Above all, they provide a good pool of capital for industry to invest. If a country does not have high levels of savings, it will not have high levels of investment. It is wrong for the Opposition to think that they can boost investment at the same time as taxing savers to the hilt. Again, that shows how little they have learned since the dark days of 1970, when a Labour Government last imposed an investment income surcharge on savers.
    Yes, we have problems. To a large extent those problems were caused by interest rates being kept too low in the 1980s which led to too much laxity in monetary policy. Opposition Members should remember that at that time they were urging even lower interest rates on the Government. Many other countries made the same mistake, with the result that they had similar problems of

    539
    excess inflation and excess monetary growth which they now have to wring out of their economies. It is worth reminding Opposition Members, who deny that other countries have economic problems, that the United States, Switzerland, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have all had deep recessions; many of those were formerly successful economies.
    Entry into the ERM may have exacerbated the problem, but I believe that it has been a necessary discipline. It will lead to a fundamental shift away from over-consumption to a more productive savings and investment orientated economy.
    In the 1980s, Britain underwent significant improvements in industrial productivity and efficiency due to policies which were opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition. Our biggest remaining disadvantage is the poor quality of much of our education system. Education is crucial to a successful advanced economy. There may have been a time when countries could get away with low calibre work forces and a highly educated elite, but nowadays manufacturing industry needs flexible, decentralised and sophisticated work forces, which is why the changes that we are introducing in the education system are crucial to our future as an industrial and manufacturing nation.
    Our policies are dealing with the weaknesses in our education system. Labour's control of many of the worst local education authorities shows that it has contributed to the problem and learnt nothing, because it is opposing all of our much-needed education reforms. Labour's pledges to increase spending show once again how little it has learnt. Increased public spending means crowding out the private sector and reduced private sector investment. Taxing savings means a reduction in the investment which could create manufacturing jobs. Those policies show how little it has learnt. Labour is not part of the cure. In fact, it is and always has been part of our industrial problems.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Like my city's position in the Government's priorities, I always seem to be at the fag end of debates. Nevertheless, I should be less than honest if I said that I was participating in this debate because of the Secretary of State's robust defence of his stewardship of his office.
    The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) fell asleep and half the people in the Gallery walked out because they found the right hon. Gentleman's defence less than riveting. His speech was characterised by a series of obfuscations and evasions and by downright ignorance. He seemed to have a peculiar unwillingness to grasp the responsibilities of his office. We heard an absurd argument about additionality being somehow metaphysical. I can say only that his understanding of philosophical terminology is even less than his understanding of his office. In fact, his argument was tautological and he should go back to his philosophy textbook and find out what it means.
    We have been painted as the party of doom and gloom. The Secretary of State struck me as a Tory Hamlet without the charm. To find doom and gloom I have to go no further than the TSB's United Kingdom economic outlook for January this year. Its first paragraph states:
    540
    "December's economic data paint a gloomy picture particularly for the Government which had heralded a recovery in the second half of the year."
    It goes on to state the bald fact that
    "in the three months to November, output fell by 0·5 per cent., and was 1·5 per cent. lower than a year earlier."
    The Secretary of State made great play of innovation and research and development. I was tempted to intervene and ask him what he thought about, for example, GPT. That company invested a lot of money from its Plessey days in research and development. It developed the system X form of telecommunications, but it is now closing huge sectors of that operation and jobs are being lost. More importantly for the telecommunications industry in this country, huge reservoirs of expertise are being broken up and thrown away. Once again, we shall lose a world lead in a particular branch of R and D.
    That company showed innovation, but where was the support from the Government? I know that the Government met union representatives at the company, but only last week more redundancies were announced. Where does it end? Where is the support for such firms?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I visited the factory of Precision Hydraulics, a company in my constituency. We heard the old shibboleth about the trade union movement and the damage it has done to industry. My hon. Friend and I visited a factory in a city which is much derided by the Government. That factory had 100 per cent. union membership, and there were good relations between management and unions. It was a high-tech factory, exporting hydraulic pumps to Japan, West Germany and America. It was a leader, and its staff worked sensibly together. The overwhelming impression with which I came away was that those people would do a damn sight better if we had a Government who would give them some support.
    The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) tells us that he wants to deal in facts. I shall tell him some facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East described the Government's abdication from regional policies. I shall give examples drawn from the north-west, involving two major companies. In 1980, 62 per cent. of the work force of ICI was based in the United Kingdom. In 1991, that proportion was down to 38·5 per cent. That is a fact—jobs have been exported.
    The proportion in Pilkington has gone down even more dramatically—from 65 per cent. in 1980 to 27·6 per cent. last year. That is a fact. Pilkington's jobs and expertise have been exported.
    We have heard all the facts about unemployment. We know that 306,900 people are unemployed in the north-west, even according to the fiddled figures. We know that the north-west has lost 322,000 jobs. Even taking into account the increase in self-employment, we have lost 181,000 jobs. That is a fact.
    The North-West Business Leaders Forum consists of 30 major companies which have come together. It is a fact that those companies are keen on a regional development agency. They certainly identify more closely with our plans for the future Labour Government than they do with those of the present Government.
    I am conscious of the time limit, so I shall finish with one more important fact—the distribution of the unemployed in the north-west. At the general election we shall be watching the Bury seats, the Bolton seats, and

    541
    Hyndburn, Pendle and Wallasey seats. The results that Labour achieves in those areas will show in electoral terms people's recognition of the damage that the Government have done to the infrastructure and the economy of the north-west. The electorate will be in no doubt. I shall make one safe prediction: when we have a Labour Government, the largest number of Labour Members of Parliament will represent not Scotland but the north-west.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that no one will be happier about the fulfilment of his prediction than Scottish Labour Members.
    There has been a certain predictability about the line of argument in the debate. There is no doubt that Conservative Members know what they are supposed to say. They take the line from those who are their seniors—if not their betters. We have heard a remarkable number of excuses and explanations.
    The Secretary of State, whose remarks were echoed by many of his hon. Friends, told us that all the problems that we mentioned were the problems of other countries in the world and of the recessions that they had manufactured. One Conservative Member even told us that what was happening in Britain was all America's fault.
    I was fascinated by the most prevalent line of argument —that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was acting improperly in some way, because he spoke about the situation as he saw it. We were led to believe that there was a patriotic duty not to tell the truth about the Government. I am used to the theory that one should not be disloyal when abroad, but it is new to me that even in the House of Commons we must watch what we say, in case we frighten the workers. That is an extraordinary proposition. In the months ahead, when Conservative Members populate the Opposition Benches, I shall greatly look forward to watching them practise the restraint that they now preach. I shall be surprised if I am impressed by their performance in that respect.
    The Secretary of State said that the Labour party was intellectually paralysed and near brain-dead. Some of my hon. Friends suggested to me that that was a state about which the right hon. Gentleman could talk with some authority. But, to be fair to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall be fair to him, because few other people manage to do so. There were moments when realism broke through. His remarks about the state of the Japanese economy were interesting. He clearly found the metaphysical distinction between slow growth and recession rather hard to pin down. For a minute, I thought that his words on that amounted to a disagreement with the Prime Minister.
    The Secretary of State also told us that it was always very difficult to know when we were coming out of recession and that it sometimes takes months to be sure what is happening. That was some sort of explanation for why he and most of his Front-Bench colleagues have been consistently wrong in their economic projections over the past 18 months. If I am not mistaken, it amounted to as near an apology as we shall get from the right hon. Gentleman.
    In a few minutes, we shall hear a closing speech by the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. I find that a rather surprising appearance in the
    542
    debate. I would have expected someone from the Scottish Office to speak. I might even have expected someone from the Scottish Office to put in an appearance at some time in the debate, even if only for two or three minutes. The Scottish Office has a big team, yet there has been not one sign or trace of the Scottish Office. The Under-Secretary's possession of a membership card for the No Turning Back group is not a substitute, although he may have been told by one of his hon. Friends that that is a welcome characteristic at the Scottish Office. However, it is not a substitute for a Scottish Office Minister. I realise that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is ill, but surely one of his colleagues could have had the courage to turn up.
    I can deduce, as many others can, only that the Scottish Office is running away from the problem. Are we really to accept that the Scottish Office no longer has any interest in industry? Are we really to believe that the recession does not hit Scotland hard? If Scottish Office Ministers think that, they should think again.
    I will talk about Scotland, and I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State will represent the Scottish Office case as fairly as he can. I do not envy him the task. In his new year's message, the Secretary of State for Scotland —I do not expect that the Under-Secretary has read the document, and I do not recommend that he does—put a remarkable gloss on the situation. I thought that it was a message marked only by total unreality. I will give the House a brief quote. The Secretary of State said:
    "The evidence is mounting that Scotland is on the road to economic recovery. Business confidence is rising across most of Scotland. Growth in the Scottish economy should become apparent soon"—
    a note of caution there—
    "and our economy should grow steadily through 1992 and beyond."
    The Secretary of State talked generally not quite in terms of an economic miracle, but at least of the Scottish Office equivalent thereof.
    The kindest explanation is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has reached the point at which he finds it impossible to face reality. He does not want to know—a feeling that often comes with the conviction that nothing can be done. Our essential case is that something can and should be done.
    On 29 January 1992, the Secretary of State for Scotland answered a planted question from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). I notice that the hon. Gentleman, having made a speech in which he overran his time, has now departed the House. He is the kind of gentleman who gives a public school education a bad name in Scotland. His planted question gave the Secretary of State a chance to set out his industrial policy—and a sad fist he made of it. However, he made one straightforward claim for which I am grateful. He referred to his policies —[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman is here."] I do not apologise to the hon. Member for Amber Valley. He has been in and out of the Chamber like a ghost and I think that he has no more substance than that legendary figure has.
    The Secretary of State made a proud claim. He said:
    "The success of my policies and the work of my Department can be shown through the progress Scotland has seen over the past 10 years."—[Official Report 30 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 1191.]

    543
    That is the test that he wants us to apply—the progress that Scotland has made over the past 10 years. I will spend a couple of minutes looking at the 10 years that have passed and at the progress that has been made.
    Taking the Government's first 10 years, employment in manufacturing industry declined in Glasgow by 52 per cent., in Motherwell by 45 per cent. and in Dundee by 43 per cent. Scotland lost more than one third of its manufacturing base—the equivalent of more than 200,000 jobs. In the past two years the situation has deteriorated even further, so I do not believe that there is any evidence of the recovery of which the new year's message spoke.
    Ministers show endless ingenuity when it comes to discussing unemployment—it is one of their favourite Rorke's Drift defensive positions. Unemployment has risen harshly from a similar comparison base of 140,000, when the Government came to power, to almost 230,000. However Ministers reply by saying, "Ah, there may be more people unemployed, but there are also more in work."
    My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has done a great deal of work on this issue. If one compares the situation in September 1979 with that of September 1991, one sees that the number in work has come down sharply by 150,000 —or by more than 7 per cent. That is the number in employment. However, the total work force is down by 26,000. That does not take into account the sharp increase in the number of women part-time employees. It does not challenge the fact that the Government are now counting those in Government training schemes as being in employment—they were not included in 1979. Nor does it take account of the fact that the Government count those with a second part-time job as two employees. If one makes allowances for that, it is clear not only that unemployment has risen but that the numbers in work have dropped greatly.
    During those 10 years, Scotland's share of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product has fallen from 8·8 per cent. to 8·3 per cent. Between 1979 and 1990, Scotland's share of GNP in manufacturing fell from 8·5 per cent. to 7·8 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. Scotland's GNP per head in 1991, expressed as a percentage of the United Kingdom figure, stood at 92·6 per cent. That is the lowest it has been since records were first kept on a comparable basis in 1971.
    The Secretary of State has the darned cheek to put out new year messages and to tell us at the Dispatch Box that he is the possessor of a fine record and a success story. The index of production and construction currently shows that production is falling more quickly in Scotland than it is in the United Kingdom as a whole. The economic blizzard is blowing in a way that totally obliterates the claim, which was made with some plausibility at the beginning of the recession, that Scotland is suffering a little less drastically than other parts of the country.
    The casualty list lengthens. Dun and Bradstreet records that there were 7,950 business failures in Scotland in 1991 —an increase of more than 76 per cent. and well above the United Kingdom figure. The list of job losses is endless. I am able to give only a small selection from the past couple of weeks' which includes companies such as Armitage Shanks, Clydesdale bank, Rosyth, Gates Rubber in
    544
    Dumfries, Hughes Electronics in Glenrothes and Ravenscraig itself. However one looks at it, that is not a list that gives confidence for the immediate future. The range, variety, and scale of those losses is daunting.
    The Secretary of State has been deserted even by his own traditional allies. There has been much talk today about the advantage of looking at the economic scene as a man of business. A number of people have put on a touching act of "where there's muck, there's brass" and to show that they know how many beans make five. I should say that it was rather unlikely character acting in some cases.
    It is worth noting what those in business and industry are saying, because a different picture begins to emerge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East pointed out. Let us take the Scottish CBI survey—[Interrupion.] I hear someone snorting in a way that the CBI would not find particularly attractive.
    Mr. Whitney: I was snorting because the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend—the denigrator from Dunfermline—has misquoted the CBI time and time again. As I said earlier, the CBI has pointed out that, since 1980, this country's industry has grown much more strongly than that of Germany or France. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has totally disregarded any quotations from the CBI about that. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, 12 minutes ago, that something must be done, and, 12 minutes on, I would like to know what must be done.
    Mr. Dewar: If the hon. Gentleman manages to produce a few more phrases such as "the denigrator from Dunfermline" he may get a job with Saatchi and Saatchi, but unfortunately that company will not be able to take him on, as it is not hiring because of the recession. In any event, at a time when German production has grown by more than 20 per cent., the British figure is only 6 per cent. If that is a sign of strength, the hon. Gentleman has a strange sense of proportion.
    The CBI in Scotland said in its January report:
    "General business confidence and export optimism have deteriorated markedly over the last four months. Profit margins have been squeezed, investment intentions in plant and machinery have worsened since October."
    The Scottish chambers of commerce business survey said that demand is
    "stagnant or continues to contract across all major sectors."
    So even in the business sector—or perhaps particularly and understandably in business and industry—there is total disbelief about claims that are being made by a Government who are rapidly being stripped of all credibility. I find it very irritating indeed—wounding, indeed, to my constituents—when I look at the problems and prospects that they face, when I consider the deprivation that is growing in our communities and when I listen to the complacency that is peddled daily by Ministers.
    The Conservatives are not the only people making a claim, so a comment about the nationalists—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I should perhaps apologise. I had hoped to he making these comments in the presence of the nationalists because, after all, the debate deals with a recession that is striking hard in Scotland. Unfortunately, they have not put in an appearance during the debate, so I must speak in their absence.

    545
    I make it clear at the outset that I accept that Scotland is capable of sustaining independence. Some of the poorest areas in the world are independent states and some of the richest, such as California, choose to be part of a wider political and economic union. The question is not can we but whether it would be wise to take that road.
    The dishonesty that must be challenged is the assertion that Scotland needs only a political operation to break the ties with the rest of Britain and every problem will be solved. The myth that a separate Scotland would, by some mysterious chemistry, become a land of milk and honey is a case that makes no sense, based on arithmetic that does not add up.
    The nationalists would have us believe that oil revenues would meet every emergency and plug every fiscal gap. Oil is an asset in relative decline and is inevitably time-limited. This year, the Treasury estimates a yield to the Government of between £1·2 billion and £1·4 billion. It may increase for a short period, but the take will always be affected by international prices and the concessions necessary to encourage the development of marginal fields.
    It cannot be right to advocate a major constitutional upheaval on the optimistic assumptions that the nationalists have made about the yield from the North sea. It is calculated that about £4 billion would have to be found per year to maintain present levels of public expenditure in a separate Scotland. On present projections, that would still leave a huge funding gap. What would be the answer—lower public expenditure or increased taxation?
    The most important question I wish to address is whether separatism would encourage or even allow the growth of a modern, competitive manufacturing economy. The SNP advocates a fully-fledged Scottish currency, Perhaps that will raise a cheer at the SNP conference, but it would have serious consequences for Scotland's manufacturing industry.
    The nationalists ignore the dramatic impact of reducing the home market from 50 million to 5 million at a stroke. If the nationalists really believe that there would be a differential interest rate between Scotland and England, what would there be to stop capital moving south? Investors based in what was Britain may well come to Scotland, but for cheap loans, while the differential, and nothing else, would survive.
    Scottish industry must sell to live. It cannot survive on its domestic market. Do the nationalists seriously suggest that every time a Scottish company sold goods south of the border—and there would be an international border if the nationalists had their way—the deal would have to take account of a fluctuating exchange rate and a foreign currency transaction?
    Professor David Bell of Stirling university argued that case forcefully in an article in The Scotsman earlier this week. In doing so, he underlined the futility of the whole exercise. Why pay such a heavy penalty in terms of dislocation and disruption? What price Scottish influence in major monetary decisions once Eurofed is in place? Only the first division players in the Community will have the leverage to influence central bank policy if EMU is introduced.
    Professor Bell stresses the inescapable problems that would come with a separate currency. He argues that
    "the disadvantages of introducing a Scots pound are obvious—dislocation of the financial Community, an obstruction of normal trade flows."
    546
    He concedes that it will be a potential political advantage if the experience allowed the Government to determine effectively the best rate at which the Scottish pound could join the monetary union. His conclusion, however, is uncompromising. He says that the short-term introduction of a separate currency would be "an extraordinarily difficult exercise". Scottish industry, too, would regard it as an extraordinarily damaging process.
    Labour's case for a Scottish Parliament is firmly based on democracy and good government. It is a scheme tailormade for Scotland—
    Mr. Whitney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition chose as the title for the debate
    "Government policies and the recession in British industries".
    How is the debate between the Labour party and the Scottish National party about devolution relevant to that subject?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is making his case. I have heard nothing out of order.
    Mr. Dewar: The plans proposed in certain quarters of Scotland would have a damaging effect on industry. I should have thought that that was of interest to all hon. Members.
    There is a strong industrial case for the powers of a Scottish Parliament, as outlined by the Labour party. As European integration proceeds and competition policy develops, the emphasis is bound to be on the supply side. Governments, whether in an independent Scotland or the United Kingdom, will concentrate, as a Labour Government will, on research and development, encouragement and investment, and training and skills. A great deal will depend, especially in Scotland, on the development of essential infrastructure. Scotland will want to invest in the energy and capacity of the people, which will be the task of the new Parliament, shaking off the dreary record of the last decade, which has left current investment in manufacturing below 1979 levels in real terms.
    What is happening in Scotland—the depressing, hurtful statistics to which I referred earlier—is typical of what is happening in many parts of Britain. I listened to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Eccles (Miss Lestor), for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). They mentioned the problems of firms such as Pilkingtons which link their constituencies with mine. We all recognise that their problems are pressing. We must attack the problems of training and skills and get away from the insults referred to at the beginning of the debate. Employment action, so hyped by the Government, has created only 263 jobs in Scotland. We must raise that investment from below its 1979 level, where it has been disastrously stuck for so long, and do something about infrastructure links if we are not to end up at the wrong end of Britain and the outside edge of Europe.
    There has been much talk about experience. Conservative Members said that it was the key to the Government's success, but they have translated experience into prejudice and into doing nothing. They deny all responsibility and blame everyone else. The experience of the electorate will make them decide that it is time for a change.
    9.43 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): That was an interesting speech on devolution. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) seems to protest too much. Perhaps he is worried about being crushed between the anvil of Scottish nationalism and the hammer of Tory Scottish unionism—as he will be at the general election.
    As for the hon. Gentleman's criticism that a Scottish Minister is not replying to the debate, he knows that that is a low blow, because the Scottish Minister responsible for industry is ill and the Secretary of State for Scotland is in Scotland. I could ask the hon. Gentleman the following question: as there are two English Ministers, why have the Opposition not managed to field an English spokesman, when there are two Scottish spokesmen? There are seven industrial virgins as spokesmen—not one Englishman.
    Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the Secretary of State for Scotland is my opposite number, and he has had knowledge of this debate for well over a week. I think that he should have been here—and I think that Scotland will agree.
    Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has an appointment in Scotland that he cannot break.
    We have heard another dreary list of statistics from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said, as boringly predictable as Pavlova's dog—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has been orderly so far, and I ask the House to give the Minister a reasonable chance.
    Mr. Leigh: As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) showed from his own experience—which the Opposition do not have—the CBI "Industrial Trends" in his district shows that confidence is increasing.
    Claims have been made about inadequate investment —particularly by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. There are bound to be fluctuations in investment over the economic cycle. Investment responds primarily to expectations of future demand, not tax incentives. What has depressed investment of late is a cylical downturn in demand and activity. It would be totally counterproductive to attempt to offest that effect by creating artificial stimulae—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to Opposition Members that I hope that the debate is not being televised in Scotland, as it will not provide a very good example.
    Mr. Leigh: The Opposition do not like it; they do not listen to arguments. They did not listen to any Conservative arguments.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) made clear, one does not solve such problems by throwing taxpayers' money at them.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an interesting speech on the importance of investment in manufacturing infrastructure and infrastructure generally. He spoke of transport but did not mention the fact that, over the next three years, investment by British Rail and London Transport is expected to be 50 per cent. higher. He did not mention that investment in
    548
    health is £250 million higher or that housing spending is set to rise by 17 per cent. He did not menton that capital spending on schools will rise by 7 per cent. or that spending on law and order was set to rise by £106 million.
    The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was right to speak of unemployment in her constituency. However, in her attack on the defence industry in the north-west, she did not explain how her policies would result in anything less than a dramatic fall in employment. She attacked arms sales worth millions of pounds to the north-west and thousands of jobs, but failed to mention those losses.
    Two of the most interesting speeches—
    Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Leigh: No, I shall not, as I have so little time.
    Two of the most interesting speeches from Opposition Members came from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr Mitchell). I had thought that Opposition Members supported our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, but it seemed that those two members were attacking our membership. They talked as though they were in favour of devaluing sterling.
    Mr. Alan Williams: I was attacking not our membership but the level at which we entered the ERM, which is different. I made it clear that I was expressing a personal opinion, not a party one.
    Mr. Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman is a former Minister and spoke with great authority. He seemed to be speaking the truth, which is staring Opposition Members in the face. Their policies would result in a devaluation of our position in the ERM.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other hon. Members stressed the importance of education and a training budget. The Government are committed to major investment in this area. The Department of Employment is investing more than £2·7 billion in training, enterprise and vocational training this year. That is no less than two and a half times as much in real terms as was spent in 1978–79. Industry and employers have an important role in deciding the type and level of skills needed by the work force. I am encouraged by the latest "Industrial Trends" survey, which shows that more firms are planning to increase their spending on training.
    The Government believe that research and development expenditure decisions are for the market to take, but industry's funding of its own R and D rose by 43 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1989.
    The Government are investing £170 million in export services, employing 200 private sector advisers to make sure that the money is well spent.
    In the remaining few minutes of this debate, I want to ask the Opposition a question that I asked the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East a year ago. I am still waiting for an answer to it. I asked him then whether a Labour Government would be prepared to waste money coaxing investment over and above what the market provides and deems necessary. As I said, the hon. Gentleman refused to answer that a year ago. I should be happy to give way to him if he would like to estimate how much his proposed incentives will cost the taxpayer; secondly, how much net additional investment that would create; and thirdly, what effect any such extra investment will have on the growth of GDP. Fourthly, I should like to

    549
    ask whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with Credit Lyonnais, which states that it hardly makes sense to impose a savings tax on the very capital that we would all like invested in industry.
    Before the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East answers these questions—I am sure that he will try to—he might ponder the fact that total investment in the British economy runs at about £100 billion a year. So what is his answer? None is forthcoming, because Labour's policy is a sham. The amount of investment needed to make any real difference would mean that the extra taxation to pay for it would destroy the economy.
    Then there was the farce of the announcement by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in favour of an emergency package—a package quickly disowned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) almost the next day. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that we would have to wait for growth before implementing that package: help the patient once he has recovered.
    What money will be provided for Labour's national investment trust, British technology trusts and regional development agencies? I am prepared to give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East if he will estimate for the House how much money he will give those bodies. If a national investment bank ran on a commercial basis, why would we need it?
    Labour Members talk of the need to support British technology. The old National Enterprise Board, designed to do just that, was able to borrow up to £750 million. Did it fail because it could borrow too much or because it could borrow too little? Opposition Members will not answer these questions, because they cannot answer them.
    Finally, I repeat the question asked by the Secretary of State earlier today. If there were a run on the pound, as virtually every commentator expects in the unlikely event of a Labour victory, would Labour raise interest rates to maintain the pound's parity or would it devalue? That is a choice that every Labour Government has had to face, and every Labour Government has done both—they have put up interest rates and devalued. The silence of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in the face of history speaks eloquently. Four questions, four silences.
    There is one question which the British people will ponder above all others in the coming weeks. How does it help small business men seeking to keep their businesses going and growing, how does it help the young married couple seeking to pay their mortgage, how does it help the large company seeking to remain competitive in world markets if they all end up paying more taxes? We will go on asking that question and. I suspect, receiving no answer to it, because there is none.
    Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Leigh: I will not; I have asked several questions and received no answers.
    The film "JFK" now showing in our cinemas reminds us of the implausible magic bullet which killed the President, and no one quite believed it. But they had to believe it, because the alternative of conspiracy was too awful to contemplate. In the same way, Labour's industrial policy is a kind of magic policy. It puts up taxes, it piles on red tape, it gives power back to the unions, it lets inflation rip, it does all the things guaranteed to damage industry, and yet, hey presto—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way, hon. Members must resume their seats.
    Mr. Leigh: Hon. Gentlemen do not really believe it themselves, but they cannot bear the horrible truth. It makes them shudder to think of it. They know that, after 13 years of Opposition supply days, a complete policy review never knowingly under-relaunched and a risible prawn cocktail offensive, they still cannot convince people that they can be trusted to run the economy. Their feeble new industrial policies—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Leigh: Their feeble new industrial policies have about as much impact as one man against a block vote at their annual conference. Their old knee-jerk prejudices —higher taxes, more red tape and power to the unions, with a cheque in the post to Walworth road, would wreck British industry's hard-won success. There is no big idea; it is simply a big lie.
    That is what is on offer from the Opposition. Let us see what industry wants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston made clear, industry wants low inflation. The Government have made the defeat of inflation their top economic priority. They have not shirked the tough measures necessary to bring inflation down.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) made clear, industry wants good industrial relations. The Government have systematically improved the framework for industrial relations in Britain. A proper balance has been achieved, enabling managers to manage for success. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) said, industry wants low taxation. The Government have cut corporation tax to the lowest level in the industrialised world.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) made clear, industry wants freedom to plan and invest for growth. The Government have swept away administrative and bureaucratic controls and regulations, allowing firms to get on with the business of making quality products at competitive prices. The Government have returned loss-making state corporations to the private sector, where their performance has improved dramatically.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) made clear, industry wants access to overseas markets. The Government have played a leading role in arguing the case for freer and fairer trade both within the European Community and within the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
    There is therefore a contrast to draw. The Opposition claim to be a friend of business but offer crumbs compared with the scale of activity in the United Kingdom—crumbs which within the rule of Beckett's law they cannot even afford. Our party is committed to the framework for growth, to creating the conditions for growth and letting those who are able get on with the job. We assist, of course, and our watchword is focus and cost-effectiveness in the support that we give. The Opposition revel in great phrases, but their promises amount to waste. Their only measure of success is the sheer quantity of other people's money that they seek to squander.
    The contrast is all too stark. We created the framework that delivered industrial resurgence in the 1980s, a performance unrecognisable after the lost years following

    551
    1974. The framework through which this transformation was achieved is still in place, under fire with recipes for dependency on the state. The Opposition would only tinker with and corrupt initiative, re-create dependency and divert attention from a fiercely competitive world. Once the present downturn has passed, the future is there for all to embrace. Of course there is hardship. Of course the present mist will clear, and industry will emerge stronger, leaner, and better placed to face the competitive challenges of the 1990s.
    Our amendment tells it how it is. The preconditions for recovery are there. The framework is there. Our policies are there, and the will of the people—
    Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 292.

    Division No. 73]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

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

    Allen, Graham

    Dewar, Donald

    Anderson, Donald

    Dixon, Don

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Doran, Frank

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

    Ashton, Joe

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Edwards, Huw

    Barron, Kevin

    Enright, Derek

    Beckett, Margaret

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bell, Stuart

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Bellotti, David

    Fatchett, Derek

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

    Fearn, Ronald

    Benton, Joseph

    Fisher, Mark

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Flannery, Martin

    Blair, Tony

    Flynn, Paul

    Blunkett, David

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Boateng, Paul

    Foster, Derek

    Boyes, Roland

    Fraser, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Fyfe, Maria

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

    Galloway, George

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Caborn, Richard

    George, Bruce

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Gould, Bryan

    Canavan, Dennis

    Graham, Thomas

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Carr, Michael

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cartwright, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Hain, Peter

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Cohen, Harry

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Henderson, Doug

    Corbett, Robin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cousins, Jim

    Home Robertson, John

    Cox, Tom

    Hood, Jimmy

    Crowther, Stan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cryer, Bob

    Howells, Geraint

    Cummings, John

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hoyle, Doug

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    552

    Illsley, Eric

    Pendry, Tom

    Ingram, Adam

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Radice, Giles

    Lamond, James

    Randall, Stuart

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Reid, Dr John

    Leighton, Ron

    Robertson, George

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooker, Jeff

    Litherland, Robert

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rowlands, Ted

    Livsey, Richard

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Sheerman, Barry

    McAllion, John

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Short, Clare

    McLeish, Henry

    Skinner, Dennis

    Maclennan, Robert

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McMaster, Gordon

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    McWilliam, John

    Snape, Peter

    Madden, Max

    Soley, Clive

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marek, Dr John

    Stott, Roger

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Strang, Gavin

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

    Martlew, Eric

    Turner, Dennis

    Maxton, John

    Vaz, Keith

    Meacher, Michael

    Wallace, James

    Meale, Alan

    Walley, Joan

    Michael, Alun

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Morley, Elliot

    Wilson, Brian

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Worthington, Tony

    Mullin, Chris

    Wray, Jimmy

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    O'Hara, Edward

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    O'Neill, Martin

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Mr. Ken Eastham.

    Patchett, Terry

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Bowis, John

    Alexander, Richard

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Allason, Rupert

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Brazier, Julian

    Amess, David

    Bright, Graham

    Amos, Alan

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Burns, Simon

    Ashby, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Butler, Chris

    Atkins, Robert

    Butterfill, John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baldry, Tony

    Carrington, Matthew

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cash, William

    Bellingham, Henry

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Bendall, Vivian

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Chope, Christopher

    Benyon, W.

    Churchill, Mr

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Colvin, Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Conway, Derek

    Bottomley, Peter

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    553

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Couchman, James

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Cran, James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Knapman, Roger

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

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knox, David

    Day, Stephen

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Devlin, Tim

    Latham, Michael

    Dicks, Terry

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Dover, Den

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Dunn, Bob

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Evennett, David

    Lord, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Forman, Nigel

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Forth, Eric

    Maclean, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    French, Douglas

    Madel, David

    Gale, Roger

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Malins, Humfrey

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Mans, Keith

    Gill, Christopher

    Maples, John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Marlow, Tony

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mates, Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Gorst, John

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Gregory, Conal

    Mills, Iain

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Grist, Ian

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Ground, Patrick

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Hague, William

    Moate, Roger

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hannam, Sir John

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

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

    Morris, Sir Charles

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Hayes, Jerry

    Needham, Richard

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Nelson, Anthony

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hill, James

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Norris, Steve

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Page, Richard

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pawsey, James

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Irvine, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jack, Michael

    Portillo, Michael

    Jackson, Robert

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Janman, Tim

    Price, Sir David

    Jessel, Toby

    Raffan, Keith

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Harts W)

    Redwood, John

    Key, Robert

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Kilfedder, James

    Riddick, Graham

    554

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rost, Peter

    Thorne, Neil

    Rowe, Andrew

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Tracey, Richard

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Walden, George

    Shelton, Sir William

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Sims, Roger

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Watts, John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wells, Bowen

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Squire, Robin

    Whitney, Ray

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Steen, Anthony

    Wilkinson, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wilshire, David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Wood, Timothy

    Stokes, Sir John

    Yeo, Tim

    Sumberg, David

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    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.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its success in bringing down inflation; recognises the importance of maintaining the fight against inflation to maintain competitiveness; acknowledges the success of British manufacturing industry in reaching record figures for exports despite depressed world markets; rejects the high tax; high spending policies of the Opposition which City forecasters predict would cause an increase in interest rates and inflation and would be an impediment to recovery; condemns their anti-industry policies of nationalisation, state control, a national minimum wage, renewed union power and unqualified support for the social charter which would have damaging consequences for jobs and industry; and notes that all these policies have been rejected by business.

    EMPLOYMENT
    Ordered,
    That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86, (Nomination of standing committees), and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.) shall apply to the draft revised Code of Practice on picketing as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said draft revised Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]

    SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That in the course of its consideration of the Matter of the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 24th February at half-past Ten o'clock, and that,

    555
    notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) the Committee shall have leave, at that sitting, to sit until half-past three o'clock, and that sitting shall constitute consideration on two days for the purposes of Standing Order No. 97 (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland).—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Sub-postmasters
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
    10.14 pm
    Sir Anthony Grant: In raising this subject on the Adjournment, I want to say that it concerns not only myself as Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West but my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James). Like me, he has raised the matter at Post Office and ministerial level.
    On the night of 18 November, the Hills road post office in Cambridge was broken into and approximately £21,000 and valuables were stolen. The sub-postmaster, Mr. Habib Khokhar, my constituent, has been charged with the offence of robbery by the police. The case has yet to be heard. I shall not refer to it as it is sub judice, except to make the general observation that everyone is innocent until proved guilty.
    Mr. Khokhar's son, Mr. Naeem Khokhar, was sub-postmaster of another post office at St. Johns road, Cambridge. Both sub-post offices were closed by the Post Office authorities, and both the Khokhars' contracts were terminated—despite the fact that all charges against Mr. Naeem Khokhar have been withdrawn.
    The result has been intolerable inconvenience to many of my constituents—particularly to pensioners—who regularly use those post offices, and particularly over the Christmas period. In a busy area like Cambridge, that is not good enough. There is no reason why those post offices could not have been kept open, with alternative or temporary staff, while the matter was clarified. Both the Khokhars were willing to make all papers available and stay away from the post office while the matter was investigated and clarified.
    The Post Office authorities' treatment of Mr. Naeem Khokhar, against whom no charges have been preferred, has been arbitrary and unjust in the extreme. The only reason that they gave for terminating his contract was what they called "loss of confidence". I believe that they are usurping the role of the courts in deciding a case without proper presentation of the evidence. What is worse, they are treating a man as guilty until he is proved innocent. They have not given him a fair hearing. They say that he can appeal, but that will take weeks. Meanwhile, he is likely to become destitute for want of money. The Post Office's attitude is contrary to all the rules of natural justice.
    Ironically, a similar break-in took place at a nearby post office three weeks earlier, but the Post Office did not terminate that sub-postmaster's contract. No reason has been given for this inconsistent and discriminatory treatment. The Post Office failed to take into consideration the valuable service to the local community and the adverse effect on those who rely on the sub-post office, in particular pensioners and those on benefits.
    I tackled the chairman of the Post Office as soon as the matter was brought to my attention and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has done the same on behalf of his constituents. The chairman replied that in criminal courts a higher standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt—applies, but that it does not apply to the Post Office's treatment of its sub-postmasters. He says that an employer is not obliged to await the outcome of a criminal prosecution. That may be good law, but the

    557
    important words are "not obliged". Surely good employers would not prejudge a case without considering all the consequences.
    What is more, in the case of Mr. Naeem Khokhar there is no criminal prosecution. He is not being charged with anything, yet he is being treated as a criminal by the Post Office on the way that it is conducting the case. Because there is no criminal charge against him, that is all the more reason why the Post Office should have refrained from taking hasty and arbitrary action.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I know nothing of the circumstances, save as they have been outlined by the hon. Gentleman. In relation to the person against whom no criminal charge has been laid, will he accept that I regard the account which he has given as monstrous and reflecting extremely badly upon the Post Office?
    Sir Anthony Grant: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for saying that, because he is far more distinguished in the law than I am. I appreciate his support and his view.
    The National Federation of Sub-postmasters has backed my constituent in the affair and wholly condemned the inconvenience caused to the public by the high-handed behaviour of the postal authorities.
    I appreciate that Ministers must leave the day-to-day running of the Post Office to its managers, but I want Ministers to be aware that all is not well. My hon. Friend the Minister should be aware, too, that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) are members, has prepared reports on the Post Office which include criticism of treatment by the Post Office of sub-postmasters, who are an important body in the community. I shall be urging the Select Committee to press the matter further. Matters are being made worse for sub-postmasters by the Post Office's policy of engaging supermarkets like the Co-op and others to undertake its work.
    Sub-postmasters have an important role to play, especially in rural communities. I ask for two things—a better service for my frustrated constituents and justice for Mr. Naeem Khokhar.
    10.22 pm
    Sir Robert Rhodes James rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the agreement of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) and of the Minister to speak?
    Sir Robert Rhodes James: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be very brief. I have been very much involved in the case for several months, and I entirely support my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant). I know the case and the individuals. Obviously I cannot comment on the case, which is sub judice, although I have grave doubts about the way in which the matter has been handled. I resent the implication, through the closure of the post offices and the removal of the employment of my constituent and the constituent of my hon. Friend, that the presumption of innocence has been ignored. That strikes me as deeply serious and important.
    558
    I cannot comment on the justice or otherwise of the charge levelled against Mr. Khokhar, but I can comment upon the extreme inconvenience caused to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend, and the fact that our constituents have been deprived of their livelihood while the case is pending. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) described the action as outrageous. That is exactly the adjective that I would use.
    10.23 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Sir R. Rhodes James) and for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) have raised an important issue. It would clearly not be in order for me to comment on the details of the case which they have described because of the sub judice rule. Moreover, it would not be right for the Government to interfere in what is essentially an operational matter for the Post Office. As I am sure my hon. Friends are aware, our role in Post Office matters is confined to general policy issues and to overall financial control.
    I shall, of course, draw the remarks of my hon. Friends to the attention of the chairman of the Post Office. I am sure that he will notice the force with which they put their arguments, but I cannot, as a Minister, comment on the cases because of the sub judice rule.
    I am, however, grateful to my hon. Friend for inviting the House to consider sub-postmasters. I know that he has done so because of the very high priority that he gives to the interests of his constituents. In this case, these constituents are, of course, not only the particular sub-postmasters involved. They are also those members of the public who have been customers of the St. Johns and Hills road post offices in Cambridge which are at present closed as a result of the dismissal of the sub-postmasters.
    I am aware that Sir Bryan Nicholson, the chairman of the Post Office, has written to my hon. Friend assuring him that efforts are being made to minimise the inconvenience to his constituents as a result of the closure of the two Cambridge sub-post offices. I understand that the closures are only temporary, and that the offices will be reopened as soon as possible. It is in the Post Office's interests, as well as those of the local community, to get these offices reopened quickly. Might I urge my hon. Friend to encourage any of his constituents who may be interested in running a sub-post office to make their interest known to the Post Office without delay.
    The Post Office as a whole provides a service on which we all rely. I hardly need say that this service must be delivered to the very highest standards. This is true in two important respects: the public's needs must be met in full, and these needs must be met by a service whose integrity is above question. These have been critically important requirements throughout the Post Office's life both as a Government Department and over the past 20 years as a public corporation. The Post Office's efforts to meet these standards go hand in hand with its drive to transform itself into a profitable organisation run in a commercial manner.
    As I have said, the Post Office and its businesses seek to maintain a high standard of service. The contract conditions for sub-postmasters are designed to ensure that those occupying these responsible positions exercise their duties with the utmost integrity. It is, of course, a matter for the Post Office to set the type of contract conditions

    559
    under which it requires sub-postmasters to operate. The Government do not get involved in this process in any way. However, the National Federation of Sub-postmasters, which represents the interests of the sub-postmasters, negotiates contract terms with Post Office Counters Ltd.
    There is no time tonight to go into many details about what is included in the contract. It is a lengthy document covering every aspect of business conducted at sub-post offices. However, I should like to highlight a few points. The contract is explicit on the responsibilities of sub-postmasters to ensure that post office assets in their charge are maintained securely, and to report loss, theft or fraud immediately on discovery. There is also a statement of the circumstances in which sub-postmasters may be suspended from office. These include instances in which investigations of irregularities are suspected or are in progress.
    In such situations, the Post Office investigations division would carry out a careful appraisal of the matter. If there were to be a suspension or dismissal, it would take place only as a result of such an investigation. The Post Office is very aware of the need to protect individual sub-postmasters' livelihoods wherever possible. The Post Office is, however, equally mindful of its duty to protect the interests of the customer.
    I should like to take this opportunity to say something generally about the Post Office's activities in crime prevention. The general public using post offices need to be assured that the Post Office takes crime and fraud prevention very seriously—as it must, in view of the type of business it undertakes. It is continuing to invest in resources to deter fraud and crime in its various businesses. In Post Office Counters, the emphasis has been twofold. New security equipment safeguards both customers and employees in post offices where large amounts of money
    560
    are regularly handled—typically offices in large urban centres. In parallel, staff are trained in ways of identifying and preventing crime, particularly fraud.
    I know that Post Office staff have on occasions displayed considerable personal courage in the course of their service to the public. I was greatly honoured to be asked to present bravery awards to a number of Post Office staff on 6 November last year. The majority of these were sub-postmaters or sub-office assistants. Without exception, all those honoured on that day demonstrated a great deal of personal courage, to which I wish to pay tribute.
    To sum up, I have taken the opportunity to mention the Post Office's crime prevention activities and the entirely laudable way in which it recognises the bravery of individual staff because I want to make it clear that the public can be confident of two things. First, they can expect, when they go to a post office, to have their business conducted in a safe and secure manner.
    Secondly, they can be sure that the Post Office values the contribution of its sub-postmasters—and, of course, of its sub-postmistresses as well—very highly. They are the backbone of the counters network—the figures that I quoted earlier speak for themselves. It is thanks to the sub-postmasters that a high standard of service is delivered to the public throughout the country.
    It is unfortunate that the situation in Cambridge described by my hon. Friend has occurred, but, as I have said, I am confident that the Post Office is handling the matter with all due propriety, and with due regard both to the circumstances of the sub-postmasters involved, and to the interests of the public who use the two sub-post offices in Cambridge which have had to be temporarily closed.
    I know that my hon. Friends take a different view. As I have already said, I shall certainly ensure that their views are conveyed to the chairman of the Post Office, who is, of course, in operational control.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Peru
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss human rights in Peru when he meets President Fujimori of Peru on 5 February.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  My discussions with President Fujimori covered a wide range of issues of common interest, including human rights.

  Soviet Union (Members' Visits)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of hon. Members to whom his Department has afforded a briefing in advance of visits to the former Soviet Union since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not hold this information. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has given briefing to a very large number of hon. Members visiting the former Soviet Union over the past 13 years, and of course stands ready to do so in the future.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to make in his Department's diplomatic wing cash limits and running costs limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made: The cash limit for class II, vote 1 (overseas representation) will be increased by £8,209,000 from £629,076,000 to £637,285,000. The running costs limit on vote 1 will be decreased by £1,781,000 from £480,647,000 to £487,866,000. These changes take account of increased local staff salaries overseas and the adverse effect of overseas price movements which are partially offset by reduced running costs on the home estate, local budgets and information services.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 2 (other external relations) will be increased by £27,939,000 from £165,431,000 to £193,370,000. This change takes account of expenditure on Vietnamese boat people; international peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia and Cambodia; the United Nations Angola verification mission; a grant-in-aid towards the Westminster Foundation for Democracy; a payment to the Iranian Government under the United Kingdom/Iran compensation agreement and higher than forecast expenditure on United Kingdom contributions to international organisations due to the adverse effect of overseas price movements.

  The cash limit for class II, vote 4 (The British Council) will be increased by £463,000 from £89,944,000 to £90,407,000 to take account of the adverse effect of overseas price movements.
  216
  These increases will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned of public expenditure.

TRANSPORT

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits and running costs limits for his Department.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit

  Changes

  Revised cash limit

  VII, 1

  1,953,664,000

  1-21,435,000

  1,932,229,000

  2

  234,438,000

  23,176,000

  237,614,000

  4

  148,254,000

  8,660,000

  156,914,000

  5

  349,585,000

  37,600,000

  357,185,000

  1 Transfers of £2,835,000 for research and development to class VII, vote 2, £8,850,000 for the Black Country spine road to class VIII, vote 3, £8,660,000 to class VII, vote 4 in respect of reduced appropriations in aid. There is a further reduction of £1,090,000 as a result of the demand financing arrangements for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  2 An increase of £451,000 for railways inspectorate service from Department of Employment (class VI, vote 3). There is also a reduction of £110,000 in the running costs on this vote.

  3 It was announced on 1 July 1991 (Official Report column 6) that I would seek to introduce at an early opportunity legislation to write off or suspend those parts of the debt of the Humber Bridge Board that cannot be financed from the board's revenues. The board's borrowings are from the Public Works Loan Commissioners and from my Department. Until powers to write off or suspend debt are available, it would be inappropriate for further loans to be made by my Department to the board as there is no reasonable expectation of those loans being properly serviced and repaid and I understand that the Public Works Loan Commissioners have also decided that it would be inappropriate to make further advances to the board. To enable the board to meet its commitments I propose to make grants to it amounting to £7,600,000. These grants will be made on the sole authority of the estimate and the subsequent Appropriation Act.

  My Department's running costs limit has been reduced by £110,000 from £378,984,000 to £378,874,000.

  The changes described will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Airports
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made in installing a permanent noise and track keeping system at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am delighted that my noble Friend has announced in another place that BAA has now committed itself to purchasing a system that should be installed by early autumn. The system will be one of the most modern in the world, and will have considerable flexibility in the ways it can be used. It will be used to enforce noise and track requirements and also to provide a lot more information about the performance of aircraft and their impact on surrounding communities.

  The noise monitoring will be carried out by a total of 36 noise monitors. There will be 12 fixed noise monitors in total at the three airports, primarily to monitor noise against predetermined limits, and 24 mobile monitors that

  217
  can be deployed to collect data on aircraft noise from any area near the airports. The monitors will be able to record the noise made by individual aircraft and will also be able to store data so that they can be analysed in a variety of ways. This will enable a review of noise limits to be carried out at the three airports with a view to introducing tougher limits more appropriate to modern aircraft. The noise monitoring installation should be completed by the early summer.

  The track monitoring will require provision of radar data feed to the system. I understand that this should be available so as to allow installation of the track monitoring by early autumn. Again, the system will be able to identify the tracks followed by individual aircraft as well as to allow analysis of track data in different ways. This will be used to improve the accuracy with which aircraft follow noise preferential routes from the airports.

  I am pleased to report that BAA is keen to involve local people through the local airport consultative committees in considering how best to use the system. It has great potential for ensuring that aircraft are operated in a way that minimises noise nuisance for surrounding communities. But the most effective use of the system will be developed only with experience: the contribution from local people and from the airlines to that development will be invaluable.

  Holborn Station
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the safety improvements promised for Holborn station to be carried out.

  Mr. Freeman
  The timing of particular underground schemes is a matter for London Underground Limited.

  Bow Trader
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what inquiry will be undertaken by his Department into the events which led to the Bow Trader colliding with two bridges on the Thames on the night of 31 January;

  (2) if he will ask Mr. John Hayes, the head of the independent inquiry into river safety, to consider the collision of Friday 31 January of the Bow Trader into two bridges on the River Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's Marine Accident Investigation Branch is involved with the Port of London Authority in an investigation into the incident. The MAIB will provide Mr. John Hayes with early advice on the initial findings of the investigation.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the minimum manning level for a dredger such as the Bow Trader, operating on the River Thames at night.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The minimum manning level of United Kingdom-registered ships is assessed on an individual basis. In the case of the Bow Trader the minimum number of crew would be eight. The composition of the watch when operating on the River Thames at night should not be less than one qualified officer on the bridge, a helmsman, a lookout and an engineer.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of manning on the Bow 218
  Trader on the night of 31 January; whether lookouts were maintained in compliance with his Department's standards; and if they were equipped with two way radios.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  These matters will be addressed during the investigation.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the initiatives taken by his Department to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and indicate the estimated reduction for each initiative by(a) 2000 and (b)

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave earlier today.

  Dock Labour Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, further to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 501, if he will give details of any provision by which third parties affected by the abolition of the dock labour scheme may seek redress.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Dock Work Act 1989 made no provision in respect of creditors and non-docker employees of stevedoring firms, since their rights, in the event of a liquidation, were already governed respectively by the general legislation on insolvencies and employment protection.

  Marine Accident Report
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the recommendations made by the marine accident investigation branch in the Marchioness/Bowbelle report have been fully implemented; and if he will list those recommendations which remain to be implemented, and the target implementation date.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The 27 recommendations in the marine accident investigation branch report were published, separately from the report, in July 1990. The Secretary of State for Transport immediately accepted them all. So far 20 recommendations have been fully implemented.

  Of those outstanding, five are to be the subject of regulations, and, as required by the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, consultative documents have been circulated for public comment. It is planned that sets of regulations, based on three recommendations will be in force by this summer. The recommendations to be covered by these regulations will be:
  No. 5—minimum standards of visibility on passenger launches;
  No. 15—boatman's licence to be given statutory status;
  No. 17—hours of work on river craft.

  It is planned that sets of regulations, based on two recommendations, will be in force by this autumn. The recommendations to be covered by these regulations will be:
  No. 20—a review of standards of stability and construction on passenger launches;
  No. 24—a review of life saving appliance requirements on passenger launches.
  In respect of action on recommendation No. 4—to enforce existing guidelines on navigational bridge visibility

  219
  on sea going ships—the United Kingdom made a submission to the 17th assembly of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in 1991, and will be making a submission to the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee during 1992, with a view to the mandatory adoption of the guidelines internationally. Arrangements enabling all relevant United Kingdom ships currently operational to comply with this recommendation should be completed by the end of this month.

  Responsibility for recommendation No. 19—a traffic signalling system on the River Thames—lies with the Port of London Authority (PLA). A system of radio-controlled warning lights has been developed by the PLA, for 19 London bridges. Commissioning of the lights will take place on 15 February. It is anticipated that there will be a commissioning period of one month prior to final acceptance by the PLA.

  Provisional Driving Licences (Application Forms)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include on the application form for a provisional driving licence a notice informing applicants that they may receive direct mail from private organisations; and if he will provide for applicants for provisional driving licences to opt out of the receipt of direct mail consequent on their completion of the form.

  Mr. Chope
  Further consideration is being given to the use of DVLA's database for commercial purposes. The concerns of individuals receiving third party mail has been recognised and any decision will take account of this and of the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the inclusion of photographs on driving licences; whether the photograph will be digitised and sent to the police national computer; and whether the photograph will be used for official or unofficial identification purposes.

  Mr. Christopher Chope
  The DVLA is undertaking a feasibility study to determine how best to proceed with the initiative of including photographs on driving licences. Several strategic and administrative issues are being addressed including the technology available, costs and the data protection implications. The DVLA will seek the advice of the data protection registrar.

  Police have access to the driver licensing records for law enforcement purposes under the terms of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Schedule 34(5)a of the Data Protection Act 1984 removes any data protection restriction on such statutory disclosure. If photographs of drivers were to form part of those records, then the police will have access to them under the same terms, subject to consultation with the data protection registrar.

  A driving licence is a document which indicates an individual's entitlement to drive. It is not, nor is it intended that it should be, an identity document. The law does not require drivers to carry their licence with them and there are no plans to change this.

  Car Accidents
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will show the number of car accidents involving drivers aged(a) 17 to 20 years, (b) 21 to 30 years, (c)220
  to 40 years, (d) 41 to 50 years, (e) 51 to 60 years, (f) 61 to 70 years and (g) 70 years and older both as a figure and as a percentage of all drivers in the relevant age category.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is given in the table. Information on the proportion of driving licence holders who are active drivers is not available. This may vary between age groups.

  Number of car drivers involved in injury accidents by age: GB 1990

  Number of injury accidents involving car drivers of different ages:

  GB 1990 Percentage of the driving population involved in injury accidents by age: GB 1990

  Number of injury accidents involving car drivers in each age group1

  Number of car drivers involved in injury accidents

  Estimate of number of persons holding a full car driving licence2 (millions)

  Percentage of all car drivers who involved in injury accidents

  17-20

  42,763

  45,131

  1·3

  3·6

  21-30

  89,487

  101,674

  6·3

  1·6

  31-40

  57,773

  63,225

  5·9

  1·1

  41-50

  42,250

  45,056

  5·5

  0·8

  51-60

  25,554

  26,579

  3·8

  0·7

  61-70

  14,655

  15,013

  2·8

  0·5

  71 and over

  9,226

  9,469

  1·6

  0·6

  Total3

  222,772

  330,181

  27·2

  1·2

  1 Accidents involving drivers in more than one age group are included in each relevant row.

  2 Estimate based on population date for 1990 from OPCS and GRO(S) and data on the percentage of the population holding driving licences from the 1988–90 National Travel Survey.

  3 Including younger ages and unknown ages.

  Motorway Repairs
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve maintenance on motorways and to speed up the backlog of essential repairs.

  Mr. Chope
  We shall be announcing plans later this month.

  Coastguard Service
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will specify the consultations including dates of meetings and correspondence on the review of Her Majesty's coastguard in Cornwall with(a) local authorities, (b) coastguard staff and (c) the public.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The regional controller of Falmouth search and rescue region consulted all regular coastguard officers and auxiliary coastguards in charge of rescue companies within the region, which includes Cornwall, by means of a first draft regional implementation plan on 5 February 1991. Elements of this plan were widely discussed in Cornwall—we received 33 letters from individuals and organisations between 7 February and 20 March 1991.

  The proposals of over 40 regular and auxiliary coastguards were incorporated into the final plan which, as intended, very much reflected local opinion.

  The regional controller also personally briefed the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 8 February 1991, and the hon. Member for Truro on 6 July 1991 about the background to the review, as well as five Conservative,

  221
  Labour and Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidates for Cornish constituencies between 19 February 1991 and January 1992.

  The county emergency planning officer for Cornwall was briefed about the review early in February 1991.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken on the causes of accidents on motorways.

  Mr. Chope
  The main causes of motorway accidents, driving too fast and too close to the vehicle in front, have been established for some years. Current departmental research is aimed at developing solutions and includes experiments with chevron markings; yellow bar markings on slip roads; automatic fog and incident detection equipment and advanced variable message signs.

  Cycling Helmets
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken on the effectiveness of cycle helmet wearing.

  Mr. Chope
  A hospital-based study carried out by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory indicated that cycle helmets reduce the risk of cranial injury by 16 per cent. and of serious cranial injury by 30 per cent.

  Pollutants
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for developing pollution reduction strategies for key transport pollutants in areas where repeated breaches occur.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 February 1992]: Severe air pollution occurs rarely, and is normally associated with unusual weather conditions. During such periods we advise individuals to use public transport whenever possible, share cars and cut out less important journeys.

  We have set in train a number of far reaching measures to reduce motor traffic pollution. New European standards for new cars and heavy diesel vehicles will bring major gains, with tough limits becoming mandatory from the end of the year. The new emissions check in the MOT test should ensure substantial reductions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. We intend to introduce a metered smoke test in the annual test for heavy diesels.

  We are also taking measures to deal with traffic and congestion. These are a mix of traffic management, parking controls and better public transport. We are supporting high levels of investment in British Rail and the underground, and we have recently produced, in conjunction with the bus industry and the local authorities, advice as to how buses can help ease congestion. We also issue guidance to local authorities on how to help cyclists and pedestrians. We are setting up a programme of research into urban road congestion, which will include an assessment of the potential role of road pricing.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dentists, South Down
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many dentist, in the constituency of South Down operate within the national health service; how many operate privately; and what were the figures on 1 January 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is available only in respect of those units of management in the Eastern and Southern boards which form all or part of the South Down constituency. The figures for 1 January 1992 also reflect the amalgamation of the Lisburn and Down units of management with effect from 1 April 1990. Details are as follows:

  Unit of management

  Health service dentists

  Private dentists

  1 January 1987

  Down

  14

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  19

  —

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  23

  —

  1 January 1992

  Lisburn and Down

  44

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  25

  1

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  32

  —

  Irish Language Leaving Certificate
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the students from the Republic of Ireland who have obtained places at university in Northern Ireland in 1990–91 and 1991–92 have passed the Irish language leaving certificate.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The numbers with higher level Irish language leaving certificate were as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  168

  1991–92

  160

  Numbers for those with lower level leaving certificates in Irish language are not available.

  Nurses and Health Visitors
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) district nurses and (b) health visitors are employed in each of the units of management of each health and social services board in Northern Ireland; and what were the figures on 1 January 1987.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is set out in the following tables:

  (a) 31 December 1986

  Unit of management

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Eastern Board

  Eastern Board HQ

  17

  (17·00)

  5

  (5·00)

  South Belfast Community

  24

  (23·10)

  31

  (30·06)

  East Belfast and Castlereagh Community

  43

  (40·84)

  47

  (44·64)

  North and West Belfast Community

  70

  (65·62)

  57

  (55·46)

  223

  Unit of management

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Lisburn1

  39

  (37·74)

  31

  (29·34)

  North Down and Ards1

  61

  (56·03)

  49

  (44·03)

  Down1

  31

  (30·50)

  19

  (18·66)

  Northern Board

  Coleraine, Ballymoney and Moyle1

  40

  (38·58)

  25

  (22·75)

  Carrickfergus, Larne and Newtownabbey1

  43

  (42·53)

  40

  (38·38)

  Magherafelt and Cookstown:1

  24

  (24·00)

  16

  (15·60)

  Antrim and Ballymena

  40

  (39·00)

  29

  (27·07)

  Southern Board

  Armagh and Dungannon1

  37

  (36·05)

  35

  (28·34)

  Banbridge and Craigavon1

  35

  (33·60)

  37

  (34·51)

  Newry and Mourne1

  51

  (30·50)

  27

  (27·00)

  Western Board

  Londonderry, Limavady and Strabane1

  55

  (42·46)

  40

  (39·00)

  Omagh1

  18

  (17·22)

  15

  (13·97)

  Fermanagh1

  25

  (25·00)

  18

  (15·69)

  1 Includes combined District Nurse/Midwives.

  Notes:

  1. Whole-time equivalent figures are shown in brackets.

  2. Figures are shown at (a) for 31 December 1986. The nearest date to 1 January 1987 for which figures are available.

  3. The reply reflects the changes in Units of Management which took place on 1 April 1990.

  (b) 31 December 1991

  Unit of management

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Eastern Board

  Eastern Board HQ

  1

  (1·00)

  1

  (1·00)

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  13

  (11·38)

  —

  Ulster, North Down and Ards

  11

  (11·00)

  —

  North and West Belfast Community

  48

  (47·48)

  62

  (58·27)

  South and East Belfast Community

  57

  (56·37)

  76

  (65·31)

  Down and Lisburn1

  65

  (63·14)

  50

  (45·28)

  North Down and Ards Community

  49

  (41·36)

  39

  (35·59)

  Northern Board

  Causeway

  33

  (32·60)

  25

  (23·34)

  Bannside

  52

  (49·58)

  43

  (40·55)

  Loughside

  39

  (37·33)

  43

  (41·26)

  Southern Board

  Southern Board HQ

  —

  1

  (1·00)

  Armagh and Dungannon

  41

  (40·00)

  25

  (22·00)

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community

  32

  (30·90)

  42

  (37·59)

  Southern Area Mental Health

  12

  (12·00)

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  31

  (31·00)

  30

  (28·12)

  Western Board

  Altnagelvin

  16

  (16·00)

  —

  Foyle Community

  45

  (43·13)

  41

  (36·50)

  Omagh and Fermanagh

  44

  (44·00)

  37

  (34·79)

  1 Includes combined District Nurse/Midwives.

  Notes:

  1. Whole-time equivalent figures are shown in brackets.

  2. Figures are shown at (a) for 31 December 1986. The nearest date to 1 January 1987 for which figures are available.

  3. The reply reflects the changes in Units of Management which took place on 1 April 1990.

  New Comber High School
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has yet received a schedule of accommodation from South Eastern education and library board for the proposed New Comber high school; and if he will make a statement about the progress of this scheme.
  224
  Dr. Mawhinney
  A schedule of accommodation was received by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland in October 1991. A revised schedule has been approved by the Department and returned to the board to enable it to draw up outline plans for the new school.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the revenue expenditure of each regional health authority on health service facilities for patients with a mental handicap for each year since 1981, in cash terms and at 1991 prices.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information for Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Year

  Net hospital running costs £

  1991 prices £

  1980–81

  12,732,578

  23,380,546

  1981–82

  14,327,360

  23,992,497

  1982–83

  15,271,295

  23,872,588

  1983–84

  15,970,537

  23,860,126

  1984–85

  16,686,465

  23,741,822

  1985–86

  17,391,292

  23,450,724

  1986–87

  17,831,572

  23,278,814

  1987–88

  18,560,576

  22,980,964

  1988–89

  19,944,274

  23,039,651

  1989–90

  20,541,719

  22,284,597

  1990–91

  21,258,075

  21,258,075

  The figures do not include increasing levels of expenditure on health care in the community for such patients.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on cash and running cost limits for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland departmental services in 1991–92.

  Mr. Brooke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, it is proposed that the cash limit for class 17 vote 1 (the Northern Ireland Office) will be increased by £11,236,000 from £773,396,000 to £784,632,000. This is principally to meet additional expenditure on compensation and police costs.

  The cash limit for most Northern Ireland departmental services (NIDI) for 1991–92 will be decreased by £47,820,000 from £3,119,703,000 to £3,071,883,000. This decrease arises from the transfer to the Northern Ireland Office cash limit (NIO1) of £10,581,000, the transfer to the Northern Ireland independent living fund (NID2) of £726,000 and other technical changes of £36,513,000 (net), including transfers to non-cash limited areas within the Northern Ireland Departments and a surrender of cash limit cover as a result of repayment of loans.

  The cash limit for the Northern Ireland independent living fund (NID2) for 1991–92 will be increased by £726,000 from £2,870,000 to £3,596,000. This increase arises from a revision in the assumptions on which payments from the fund are based.

  The Running Cost Limit for Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments will be increased by £3,895,000 from £652,593,000 to £656,488,000 primarily reflecting the take-up of £1,199,000 of the end-year flexibility entitlement announced by the Chief Secretary to

  225
  the Treasury on 17 July 1991, Official Report, columns 235-40, and the transfer of £2,696,000 from the Department of Social Security in respect of services operated on an agency basis by the Department of Health and Social Services. The revised running cost provision is £162,315,000 for the Northern Ireland Office and £494,173,000 for Northern Ireland Departments.

  The increase outlined above will not add to the planned total of public expenditure in Northern Ireland in 1991–92.

ENVIRONMENT

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect multi-seat fires may have on means of escape; and what account has been taken of this within the new Building Regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  The means of escape provisions of the Building Regulations have always been based on the assumption that there is unlikely to be more than one seat of fire. Accidental multi-seat fires in buildings are so unlikely that it would not be reasonable to make special provision for them under the regulations.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the removal of requirements for non-combustible materials and materials of limited combustibility will affect smoke levels and fire load in buildings and the unseen spread of fire and smoke within concealed spaces.

  Mr. Yeo
  The changes to the guidance on the use of non combustible materials and materials of limited combustibility are not expected to have any significant effect on the smoke levels in buildings, which are determined primarily by the smoke produced by their contents, such as furniture and fittings. Likewise, these changes to the guidance are unlikely to affect the unseen spread of smoke and fire, which is prevented by cavity barriers. The new guidance has not dispensed with controls over the positioning of these barriers, and it takes account of the material lining the cavity.

  The fire load is likely to be increased in some buildings where more combustible materials are used in the construction of fire resisting walls and floors. However this is not likely to be of any significance for the overall levels of safety. Because they are fire resisting these elements of construction are unlikely to be heavily involved in a fire until an advanced stage is reached, by which time evacuation would have had to have been completed.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect he expects the deletion of structural non-combustibility requirements from the new building regulations to have on(a) levels of (i) fire severity, (ii) smoke and toxic fumes and (b) likelihood of premature collapse of structures in fires in buildings constructed to the new regulations.

  Mr. Yeo
  On points(a) (i) and (ii) I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).

  The likelihood of premature collapse should not be affected by the use of combustible materials in the
  226
  circumstances described in the new guidance to the building regulations. Regardless of their composition fire resisting floors and walls that perform a load bearing function have to maintain that function for the designated test period.

  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account was taken in drawing up the building regulations tabled on 10 December of the problem of the increasing number of multi-seat fires of deliberate and terrorist origin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  While the value of active fire suppression systems against attacks of deliberate and terrorist origin has been highlighted by the recent spate of incidents, and the new building regulation guidance would have the effect of increasing the number of such installations, the regulations are not an efficient way of countering this problem, compared with good management practices tailored to the particular circumstances, and the vigilance of all concerned. There is a long lead time between changes to the regulations and changes to a significant proportion of the building stock, by which time the nature of the problem may well have changed.

  Housing Finance
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the total outstanding housing revenue debt at 31 March 1991, the unredeemed reserved part of capital receipts at 31 March 1990 and 31 March 1991 and the total of housing revenue account 1990–91 in year receipts applied to debt redemption in that year.

  Mr. Yeo
  The reserved part of capital receipts was £4·2 billion at 31 March 1990 and £5·1 billion at 31 March 1991. Information about the total outstanding housing revenue account debt at 31 March 1991 is not yet complete. It is not possible to say how much of the in-year receipts are applied to debt redemption because there is no need for authorities' accounts to relate debt redemption to particular receipts.

  Rents, Yorkshire
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of rents in(a) Wakefield, (b) Leeds, (c) Kirklees, (d) Bradford and (e) Calderdale.

  Mr. Yeo
  The latest available information on average local authority rents per dwelling for the financial year 1991–92 is as follows:

  £ per week

  Wakefield

  20·22

  Leeds

  18·70

  Kirkless

  24·36

  Bradford

  25·98

  Calderdale

  24·93

  Average annual rents for fair rent tenancies reregistered in 1990–91 and the first quarter 1991 for the West Yorkshire area are published in Department of the Environment Statistical Bulletin (91)3, which is in the Library. This publication also gives details of rents in housing benefit cases referred to rent officers under the Housing Act 1988.

  Rating Appeals
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals were settled since 1 April 1990 in respect of(a) the pre-national non-domestic rates valuations and (b) the NNDR valuations; and how many rating appeals in each category are still outstanding.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information concerning appeals to valuation and community charge tribunals in England is as follows:

  Cleared between 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1991

  Outstanding at 31 December 1991

  1973 Rating appeals

  182,000

  4,000

  1990 Non-domestic rating appeals

  142,000

  589,000

  Appeals cleared relate to those heard and decided by tribunals or withdrawn or agreed prior to or after hearing.

  Many of the 4,000 outstanding 1973 appeals were awaiting decisions by the Court of Appeal in related cases. Most of the 1990 non-domestic rating appeals were not received in tribunals until towards the end of 1990–91.

  Leigh Barton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how much public expenditure has been incurred on Leigh Barton; and for how many years it has been in his ownership;

  (2) how many years Leigh Barton, near Churstow has been closed to the public; and when it is planned to be reopened.

  Mr. Yeo
  Leigh Barton was purchased from Devon county council by the Secretary of State for the Environment in April 1974, at a cost of £4,850, and has been in English Heritage's guardianship since 1984. To date, the total estimated costs of maintenance and repair at the property amount to about £300,000.

  SSA, Cumbria
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the methodology used by his Department in calculating the standard spending assessment for Cumbria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Cumbria submitted detailed written representations about the proposals for 1992–93 and also brought a delegation to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. The points made by Cumbria were given careful consideration, as were all other representations. Cumbria's standard spending assessment increased by £0·266 million between that issued for consultation purposes and the settlement figure.

  Flora and Fauna
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for England and Wales the number of species of(a) flora and (b) fauna that have become extinct since the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  228
  Mr. Baldry
  It is probable that no species of flora and five species of fauna have become extinct in England and Wales since the introduction of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of(a) the 100 acre site of special scientific interest at Birkham wood, Harrogate, (b) the 25 acre site of special scientific interest at Shirley Pool and Rushley Moor wetlands, (c) the 2,000 acre site of special scientific interest at Ingleborough moors, Yorkshire and (d) the 1,000 acre site of special scientific interest at Yorkshire Wolds Chalk Grasslands.

  Mr. Baldry
  I will write to the hon. Member with the details requested.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to prevent any developments which damage sites of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Baldry
  Additional safeguards for SSSIs were announced in DOE circular 1/92. These measures together with other statutory provisions set out in the Countryside Act 1968, Wildlife and Countryside Acts of 1981 and 1985 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ensure that the special interest of these sites is taken fully into account when development proposals are considered.

  Departmental Research and Advice
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all research and advice commissioned by his Department from external organisations or consultants, in connection with part II of the Local Government Bill indicating(a) the terms of reference, (b) the cost, (c) when the work was completed and (d) if the work will be published.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have commissioned CSL Ltd. to advise on the costs and benefits the Local Government Commission might take into account in assessing cases for structural change, and the means by which such costs and benefits could be measured. We hope to make CSL's report available soon.

  We have also commissioned social researcher Mr. Alan Hedges to look at means of developing and refining criteria which might be applied to the assessment of community identity and loyalties, and which might be amenable to testing by means of surveys of public habits and attitudes in a given local area; and the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies in Newcastle university to consider the application of geographical information systems in the definition of community boundaries with a view to developing a suitable methodology which the Commission might use. We will decide how to disseminate the results of those studies when we have the final reports.

  It is not our policy to reveal the value of individual contracts.

  Community Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure correlation between local authority community care plans and future standard spending assessments for personal social services.

  Mr. Portillo
  Standard spending assessments are the Government's measure of the cost of providing a standard level of service across all local authorities taking account of their social, geographic and demographic characteristics and the services for which they are responsible. Community care plans reflect locally determined service priorities within available resources.

  Soft Landscaping
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a planning policy guidance note along the lines proposed by the Horticultural Traders Association dealing with soft landscaping in association with development proposals.

  Mr. Yeo
  Trees, plants and shrubs can enhance the appearance of developments and I commend the action of the Horticultural Traders Association in bringing this to the attention of local planning authorities.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of specific needs which have to be met on a regional rather than local level in the calculation of standard spending assessments for personal social services.

  Mr. Portillo
  A personal social services standard spending assessment is allocated to each social services authority in England based on its social and demographic characteristics. The standard spending assessment covers the full range of social services not supported by specific grant.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he takes of existing levels of service in the calculation of standard spending assessments for the personal social services.

  Mr. Portillo
  The standard spending assessment for personal social services is based on demographic and social indicators which best reflect the cost of providing a standard level of service. It takes no direct account of existing levels of service provision.

  Combustion Plants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the deadline by which large combustion plants should have been granted their licence from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and how many plants had been licensed by that date;

  (2) how many power stations owned by PowerGen and National Power have received the required licence from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list all large combustion plants covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 indicating the
  230
  owners; and whether they have been granted the licence, required under the Act from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Baldry
  Applications for authorisation of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 were received for 203 combustion processes of which 150 are large combustion plants; a list of these plants has been placed in the Library of the House. These should be determined within four months of receipt, or within such longer period as may be agreed with the applicant. But, in cases where commercial confidentiality has been claimed in respect of information contained in an application, this period of four months does not begin until that matter has been resolved, at which time public advertisement and consultation can take place.

  On receipt of the applications, HMIP found that additional information was required from all applicants, including PowerGen and National Power, to enable the determination of their authorisation to proceed. In seeking such information, in accordance with schedule 1 of the 1990 Act, the four-month deadline for determining applications was extended, by varying periods. Nineteen authorisations for large combustion plant had been granted by 4 February 1992. PowerGen and National Power originally requested information in 34 of their applications (14 PowerGen and 20 National Power) to be considered as commercially confidential. HMIP refused these requests and the applicants appealed to the Secretary of State against the decision. Appeals (by National Power) in two cases were withdrawn at the end of 1991 and determination of those applications is now proceeding. Thirty-two cases remain subject to appeal.

  Until the applications are determined, all existing plants remain subject to control by HMIP under existing air pollution legislation.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the measures undertaken by his Department to achieve the target set for the proportion of household waste to be recycled by 2000; and what is the estimated impact of each measure.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the document "This Common Inheritance—The First Year Report", published in September 1991. Since then we have published a report on deposit and refund systems for beverage containers and batteries. We have commissioned a major study of economic instruments necessary to encourage the recovery of resources from waste. These reports, together with the waste recycling plans now being prepared by every waste collection authority in the country, will enable us to assess the extent of any further action that we will need to take in order to achieve our aim of minimising waste and the target of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by the end of the decade.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the initiatives undertaken by his Department to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and indicate the estimated reduction for each initiative by(a) 2000 and (b)
  231
  Mr. Baldry
  The Environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200) set out the Government's strategy and a first tranche of measures towards Britain's conditional target of returning CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2005. The first year report (Cm 1655) set out progress with this strategy.

  The savings from this first tranche of measures have been taken into account in the latest scenarios for United Kingdom CO2 emissions announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Energy, on 6 December 1991. Details of these new scenarios are being prepared for publication.

  Housing Management
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he will publish his consultation paper on extending compulsory competitive tendering to housing management.

  Sir George Young
  I expect to publish it shortly.

  Kent Rent Arrears
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the rent arrears of each local housing authority in the county of Kent, as a percentage and in cash terms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Housing and Planning on 3 February 1992 to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) at column 4.

  Local Authority Housing (Applications)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities do not accept housing applications from young single people.

  Mr. Yeo
  The available information on local authority waiting lists does not separately identify young single people. Under the homelessness legislation, local authorities have a duty to accept responsibility to secure accommodation for young single people who are unintentionally homeless and judged to be in priority need because they are vulnerable. In addition, in the last two quarters a total of 62 local authorities reported securing permanent accommodation under the homelessness legislation, for other young single people.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if there are any proposals to change the 1991–92 cash limit and the net running cost limit for ordnance survey.

  Mr. Baldry
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary spring supplementary estimate, the cash limit for ordnance survey, class VIII, vote 12 will be increased by £500,000 from £21,089,000 to £21,589,000. The increase will be charged to the reserve and not therefore added to the planned total of public expenditure. The increase to the cash limit is due to a greater payover of value added tax (VAT) to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise caused by a reduction in capital and running cost expenditure for which OS can reclaim VAT together with the higher sales of OS products which attract VAT.
  232
  In addition, the supplementary estimate is required to reflect a shortfall of £2,100,000 in the receipts from the sales of maps and public sector repayment services due to a reduction in the demand for OS products. This shortfall is to be offset by a reduction in capital expenditure of £2,100,000 with no effect on the cash limit.

  As a result of the shortfall in receipts the net running cost limit will be increased by £2,070,000 from £21,730,000 to £23,800,000.

  Cash Limits
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any changes to announce to his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the following changes will be made:

  (i) The cash limit for class VIII, vote 2 (miscellaneous housing administration and grants) will be increased by £1,700,000 from £195,907,000 to £197,607,000. The increase reflects a transfer a £1,700,000 from the non-voted provision for housing action trusts for borrowing from the national loans funds to grant-in-aid which is voted in estimates. In additions, the running costs provision for rent assessment panels will he increased by £43,000 to £1,904,000 to support the provision of information technology to the panels. This increase in running costs provision will be met from equivalent savings within the running costs provision on class VIII, vote 8, so that the Department's running costs limit remains unaffected by this change;

  (ii) The DOE/HC non-voted cash limit will be increased by £950,000 from £1,520,925,000 to £1,521,875,000. This increase results from full take up of entitlement of £950,000 under the end year flexibility scheme for capital projects concerned with schemes for the homeless;

  (iii) The DOE/UA non-voted cash limit will be increased by £6,617,000 from £883,814,000 to £890,431,000. This includes increased grant-in-aid of £8,850,000 to the Black Country development corporation for the black country spine road. This increase will be offset by a corresponding reduction in the Department of Transport's cash limit for class VII, vote 1 (national roads, England). In addition, £13,280,000 is required for various projects for other development corporations, to increase resources for local authority sector derelict land grant, and to make payments of urban programme grant and city action team grant where works have progressed faster than anticipated. The costs will be met, in part, from offsetting savings of £12,000,000 on the city grant programme and other savings totalling £3,513,000 from non local authority derelict land grant, urban development grant and inner cities research.

  (iv) The cash limit for class VIII, vote 5 (central environmental services, etx) will be reduced by £9,000,000 from £317,840,000 to £308,840,000. The decrease reflects reduced grant-in-aid requirements by the National Rivers Authority.

  (v) The cash limit for class VIII, vote 6, (royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, etc) will be increased by £71,000 from £176,484,000 to £176,555,000. The increase of £71,000 is required to cover the cost of new charges by the Civil Service Commission for services provided to the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, and by the Treasury solicitors for services provided to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. These increases are offset by equivalent transfers of provision from class VIII, vote 8 (Department of the Environment: administration). In addition, the running costs provision for royal parks will be

  233
  increased by £600,000 mainly to meet the redundancy and consultancy costs associated with contracting out gardening services. This increase in provision for royal parks will be met from savings within the vote, but the running cost provision on class VIII, vote 8 will be reduced by an equivalent amount so the Department's running cost limit remains unaffected by this change;

  (vi) The cash limit for class VIII, vote 8 (Department of the Environment: administration) will be increased by £201,000 from £188,417,000 to £188,618,000. This increase includes a transfer of £200,000 from class VIII, vote 3 (urban aid and derelict land reclamation, England) for costs associated with Manchester's bid for Olympics in the year 2000, and a transfer of £71,000 to class VIII, vote 6 (royal palaces, royal parks, historic buildings, etc) as outlined above. The Department's running cost limit will be reduced by £4,541,000 from £190,061,000 to £185,520,000. The decrease includes reallocation of resources from running costs to non-running costs within this vote, and the equivalent offset to the running cost increases for rent assessment panels on class VIII, vote 2 and for royal parks on class VIII, vote 6, as outlined above;

  (vii) The cash limit for class VIII, vote 9 (revenue support grant, payment of non-domestic rates, valuation office rating and valuation services, etc., England) will be decreased by £52,686,000 from £22,759,344,000 to £22,706,658,000. The decrease reflects lower costs in payments to the valuation office, for implementation work on the council tax: and

  (viii) The DOE/LACAP non-voted cash limit will be increased by £2,710,000 from £3,016,492,000 to £3,019,202,000. This represents an increase of £3,000,000 for projects to help the homeless, partly offset by a decrease of £290,000 due to lower than expected take up of estate action grant.

  These increases will be charged to the reserve and not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  2 Marsham Street, London
  Sir Philip Goodhart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has reached a decision on the future of 2 Marsham street, London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  We have decided to knock it down. No. 2 Marsham street is a Crown building which houses most of the headquarters staff of my Department and of the Department of Transport. The building is in need of major repair. Following detailed technical studies I am satisfied that repairs on the scale necessary would not be desirable. I have therefore decided that the existing building should be demolished. Options for the future of the site including sale, are now being considered.

  The decision to demolish 2 Marsham street means that alternative accommodation has to be found for some 3,000 staff in my Department and the Department of Transport. The Secretary of State for Transport and I are considering our Departments' needs and how they can best be met. For my part, I have asked my officials to draw up proposals for moving a substantial number of the present Department of the Environment Headquarters posts to other locations, reducing my Department's requirement for accommodation in the central Westminster area. I have asked them particularly to examine the opportunities and value for money of relocation to docklands, where I am considering establishing a significant Departmental presence.

  Derelict Land Grant
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources are being made available under the derelict land grant programme in 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The resources available in 1992–93 for derelict land reclamation under the derelict land grant programme will be £106 million. This represents an increase of 21 per cent. on this year's provision. £9 million of this total has been earmarked for reclamation schemes carried out by private sector companies and voluntary organisations such as groundwork trusts. The remainder has been allocated for reclamation schemes operated by local authorities.

  The reclamation of derelict and often seriously contaminated land plays a vital role in recycling previously developed land and returning it to beneficial use. This helps to improve the environment and ensure that the use of greenfield sites for development is kept to a minimum. Since 1979 DLG has funded the reclamation of 15,500 hectares and I expect a further 1,500 hectares to be reclaimed next year.

  New priorities and guidelines for DLG were announced in May 1991 introducing greater flexibility in the type of reclamation schemes which can be supported by DLG throughout England. Local authorities applying for DLG are being encouraged to prepare reclamation strategies which are expected to show an increased emphasis on reclamation for environmental and amenity improvement.

  In urban and inner city areas we will continue to give priority to reclaiming sites for use by industry and commerce, and for housing provision; providing a demand for these sites has been clearly demonstrated. But environmental improvement can also make an important contribution to urban regeneration and a large number of DLG reclamation schemes designed to provide a new amenity and recreational provision in urban areas is planned to start in 1992–93.

  On the urban fringe and in rural areas, DLG will also be widely used for environmental improvement. A range of such schemes is planned for next year which will include the use of derelict land for community forests, the reclamation of derelict canals for amenity use and the conversion of derelict railways into long distance footpaths and cycleways.

  I have also decided how the total resources available for DLG should be divided between regions and this distribution is given in the table. Most DLG will go to the northern and midland regions where the concentration of dereliction is greatest. The north-west region and Yorkshire and Humberside will receive £21 million each, (representing increases of 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively compared with last year's allocations). The west midlands wil also receive £20·5 million (14 per cent. up on last year), including £9·21 million for investigative and infilling work in connection with the disused limestone mines in that region.

  235

  Table 1 Derelict Land Grant Programme:

  Distribution of resources by region for 1992–93

  Region

  Allocation for 1992–93 (£ million)

  Percentage increase on this year's allocation

  Northern

  12·4

  14

  North West

  21·0

  15

  Merseyside

  8·6

  13

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21·0

  25

  West Midlands

  20·5

  14

  East Midlands

  13·0

  21

  London

  2·0

  43

  South West

  4·5

  72

  South East

  1·2

  77

  Eastern

  1·0

  19

  Unallocated

  0·8

  —

  Total

  106·0

  21

  The number of rolling programmes of reclamation has also been substantially increased for 1992–93. In total there will be 26 in operation accounting for £50·5 million of DLG expenditure, with five new programmes starting in Northumberland, Sunderland, Durham, the Croal/Irwell valley and St Helens. Also project Furness will be extended to the whole of the local authority area. Rolling programmes are subject to a review after three years of operation and, following such reviews this year, the Leeds/Liverpool canal corridor programme will be extended to include Rossendale and the major programme at Salford quays will be extended for another three years to complete reclamation there.

  Reclamation in areas subject to colliery closures has been an important priority for DLG and will continue to be so in 1992–93. £21 million of DLG resources are planned to be spent in coalfield areas. DLG is now being used in these areas to concentrate on collieries closed before March 1990. British Coal has agreed to take financial responsibility for the reclamation of collieries closing since then and the combined effect of these twin programmes will add increased momentum to the pace of reclamation and regeneration in the coalfields.

  Priority is also being given under the DLG programme to dealing with derelict sites which are also badly contaminated. The reclamation costs for such sites are often much higher than average, but need to be dealt with urgently for reasons of public health and safety. In total it is likely that about £25 million of DLG will be committed towards such major schemes, involving seriously contaminated sites, on which work is likely to start next year.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which 20 local authorities have the most outstanding community charge payments; and what are the figures.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: Information is available about the arrears of community charge at 31 March 1991 for 358 out of 366 charging authorities. Of those authorities for which information is available the following have the highest arrears in terms of amounts outstanding.
  236

  £ million

  Birmingham

  60·4

  Lambeth

  50·1

  Brent

  32·4

  Bristol

  31·2

  Leeds

  31·2

  Hackney

  27·7

  Sheffield

  26·0

  Haringey

  23·7

  Leicester

  23·3

  Ealing

  22·1

  Southwark

  21·6

  Newham

  21·5

  Islington

  20·3

  Nottingham

  18·2

  Waltham Forest

  17·4

  Camden

  16·5

  Sandwell

  16·3

  Wirral

  15·5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  14·4

  Walsall

  13·9

  It should be noted that no information is available for Liverpool, Manchester, Coventry, Northampton, Oxford, Derwentside, Newbury and Oswestry.

  Contaminated Land
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a right of appeal to a landowner or occupier from the decision of a local authority including his land on a register of potentially contaminated sites and for deregistration to be undertaken in the event of appropriate clean-up measures having been taken.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: Local authorities compiling registers under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 will be required to record all land which is, or has been, subject to specific contaminative uses to be listed in regulations. An objection to the registration of a site could thus be based only on a factual question concerning the site's use, and therefore no formal appeal procedure is considered necessary. However, an authority which refused to correct an error would lay itself open to judicial review or civil legal action.

  Under section 143 sites cannot be deregistered after treatment, but registers will record details of any investigation or treatment which may have been carried out. Treatment rarely removes all contamination, and purchasers, planners and developers will continue to require information on the history and treatment of sites. Contamination from a site may also affect other land or water, and purchasers of affected land and bodies responsible for environmental protection will need to refer to registers for information on the sources of such contamination.

  In addition, deregistration of sites after treatment would have to be carried out by the local authorities responsible for registers. They would thus give an implicit assurance that the site in question was free from contamination. This would raise questions of liability if contamination was later found still to be present. It is unlikely that many authorities would be willing to give such an undertaking.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many successful prosecutions the National Rivers Authority has achieved since its inception, for pollution of(a) the River Trent and (b) other rivers and seas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that between 1 September 1989 and 30 November 1991 the National Rivers Authority—NRA—brought 1,104 successful prosecutions for water pollution offences in England and Wales. Of these 239 arose in the Severn Trent region. Information on prosecutions for pollution of individual rivers is not centrally available, although details could be obtained from the NBA's regional office.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Companies (Trade Aid)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which company or companies were the beneficiaries of the aid and trade provision made available for projects involving(a) Turkey, (b) Morocco, (c) Panama, (d) Jordan, (e) India, (f) China and (g) Malaysia for 1991.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1991 aid and trade provision funds were disbursed in respect of projects in these countries involving United Kingdom lead companies:

  (a) Turkey

  British Gas

  Amec International Construction

  TQ International

  Hallam Associates

  Thames Water International

  (b) Morocco

  John Brown Engineering

  (c) Panama

  John Brown Engineering

  (d) Jordan

  Ransome and Rapier

  (e) India

  GEC Turbine Generators

  Boving

  (f) China

  GEC Turbine Generators

  Plessey Controls

  The MVA Consultancy

  Dunlop International Projects

  Balfour Beatty

  Metrotec Group

  Mott MacDonald

  Davy McKee (Poole)

  British Shipbuilders

  Platt Saco Lowell UK

  GPT International

  Snamprogetti

  (g) Malaysia

  John Laing International

  Balfour Beatty

  Sir William Halcrow and Partners

  Acer John Taylor

  Transmark International

  Knight Piesold and Partners

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Government publications are designed to explain to companies the 238
  purpose and the benefits of the aid trade provision; and from which government department these government publications can be procured.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The purpose and benefits of the aid and trade provision are explained in the ATP "Guidelines for Applicants" booklet. This may be obtained from the Projects and Export Policy division of the Department of Trade and Industry or from the Crown Agents, CDC and ATP Department of the Overseas Development Administration. Copies of the booklet have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Agricultural Specialists
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many full-time agricultural specialists the Overseas Development Agency has overseas at present; and how many of them are women.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Overseas Development Administration has 10 headquarters staff members working as full-time agricultural specialists overseas, of whom one is a woman. In addition we have a total of 106 contract officers employed overseas on technical co-operation assignments of whom 10 are women. This figure includes 16 staff from our agency, the Natural Resources Institute, all of whom are men.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the 1991–92 cash limit for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit on the Overseas Aid Vote (class II vote 5) will be increased by £22,188,000 from £1,638,342,000 to £1,660,530,000. The increase primarily provides for additional bilateral assistance to the former Soviet Union. The supplementary also provides for an increase of £900,000 in the net running costs limit of the Natural Resources Institute. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  VAT
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will indicate the provisions(a) under which the EC could propose an increase in the VAT rate in the United Kingdom and (b) under which the United Kingdom may veto the proposal.

  The Prime Minister
  No such proposal exists. Under the provisions of article 99 of the treaty of Rome, the Commission of the European Community could, in theory, propose for example, a minimum standard rate higher than that in the United Kingdom. However any such proposal, in common with all fiscal matters under article 99 of the treaty, would be subject to unanimity and thus the United Kingdom retains an absolute right of veto.

  Peru
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the President of Peru on biodiversity in the Peruvian rain-forest and its protection.

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed with President Fujimori the forthcoming UN Conference on Environment and Development. I emphasised the importance we attach to effective conventions on climate change and biodiversity, as well as an agreement on principles for the sustainable use and management of all types of forest.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will make a study of the differences in United Kingdom and Italian practice in the use of regional funds, such as RECHAR.

  The Prime Minister
  Members of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community visited Italy in October 1991 during their inquiry into EEC regional development policy. Their report has been published and is available in the Library.

  Italy is not eligible for RECHAR.

  Communist Party (Meetings)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all meetings by(a) Ministers and (b) officials of Her Majesty's Government with (i) Ministers, (ii) diplomats and (iii) other Communist party officials of the former Soviet Union since May 1979 in (1) the United Kingdom and (2) elsewhere; and what were the purposes of the ministerial and diplomatic meetings.

  The Prime Minister
  Detailed information of this kind is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are, however, frequent contacts with Ministers and officials of the former Soviet Union at all levels on questions of mutual interest.

  Disarmament Paper
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will obtain for the library at 10 Downing street a copy of the United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs topical paper No. 5 (1991), "Conversion: Economic Adjustments in an Era of Arms Reductions" (Volume II).

  The Prime Minister
  The publication is available from the United Nations documents section in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from where copies will be obtained as required.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

ENERGY

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 505, whether Schroder Wagg's appointment as head underwriters to the regional electricity companies sale was by competitive tender.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Yes.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy further to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 505, if he will list those advisers whose appointments were not subject to competitive tender.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The five appointments referred to in that answer as not subject to competitive tender were:United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (AGR output).
  J. Henry Schroder Wagg (Trade sale).
  John Chiene (Pricing).
  Professor Littlechild (Regulatory).
  R. L. Associates (Setting X for Area Boards).

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the initiatives taken by his Department to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and indicate the estimated reduction for each initiative by(a) 2000 and (b)

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income and Benefit Levels
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all benefits payable to those with incomes over £25,000 a year; how many in this income category receive them; what is the total cost of each benefit to persons with these incomes; and what is the average value of the benefit to those above this income level.

  Mr. Jack
  The main social security benefits which are not income-related, and could therefore be payable, provided other criteria are met, to benefit units with incomes over £25,000 a year, are as follows:

  Retirement pension

  Christmas Bonus

  Widows' Benefits

  Unemployment Benefit1

  Sickness Benefit

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Invalidity Benefit

  Industrial Disablement Benefit

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Maternity Allowance

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  Non-contributory Retirement Pension

  Invalid Care Allowance

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Attendance Allowance2

  Mobility Allowance

  Child Benefit

  One Parent Benefit

  War Disablement Pension

  War Widows' Pension

  241
  1 Unemployment benefit is not paid to those with earnings in excess of £52 a week, and those aged 55 or over and getting more than £35 a week under an occupational or personal pension scheme have their unemployment benefit reduced by 10p for every 10p of pension over £35.

  2 Mobility allowance and attendance allowance will be replaced by disability living allowance in April 1992 for those who become disabled before aged 65.

  It is not possible to give meaningful information for these benefits individually, because the sample sizes are too small to draw reliable data from. Details of claimants' incomes are not collected routinely, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits (Capital Disregards)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will increase the £3,000 capital disregard on income support and housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The limit below which capital is completely ignored continues to be kept under review, as with all aspects of the benefit system, but there are no plans to change it at present.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will state for each year since 1979 the numbers of claimants of supplementary benefit or income support towards the cost of private residential care who have subsequently claimed benefit towards the costs of private nursing care and then again claimed towards the cost of private residential care.

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

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in the Wakefield benefit office's area are currently claiming towards the cost of(a) private nursing care, (b) private residential care and (c) voluntary nursing or residential care.

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

  Building Society Accounts
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet the Building Societies Association to discuss the imposition of charges on small accounts and the implications for pensioners and other recipients of state benefits paid direct into such accounts.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have already been in contact with the Building Societies Association (BSA). I understand that the Halifax building society is the only BSA member currently planning to make such charges. People who wish their benefits payments to be made into an account at another building society should contact their local social security office and with details of the new account. The procedure involved is a simple one and the staff there will be happy to help them.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether there have been any changes in the cash limits or running costs limits of his Department for 1991–92.

  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class XIV, vote 4 (administration and miscellaneous services) will be increased by £22,716,000 from £1,901,217,000 to £1,923,933,000. The revision takes account of the additional administrative expenditure arising from new procedures for the payment of mortgage interest in respect of income support recipients (£10,881,000), an increase in agency payments to Department of Employment (class VI, vote 2)(£30,000,000), a transfer to Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) vote 3 of £1,161,000, a transfer from Department of Health (class XIII, vote 3) of £819,000, a transfer from Property Services Agency of the Department of the Environment (class VIII, vote 13) of £260,000, a transfer from Department of Employment: Employment Service (class VI, vote 2) of £657,000, a transfer to Department of Health (class XIII, vote 3) of £50,000 and a transfer to Scottish Office (class XV, vote 20) of £35,000). The additional requirements are partially offset by an increase in receipts of £18,655,000 and the balance (£2,226,000) will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  In addition to the running cost increases included above there is also an increase of £6,790,000 to take account of expenditure previously classified as capital now being regarded as running costs.

  As a result of these changes the running costs limit of the Department of Social Security will be increased by £9,145,000 from £2,149,908,000 to £2,159,053,000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Adoption
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each of the last three years,(a) how many children have been brought into the United Kingdom for adoption through private or unauthorised channels, (b) out of that total how many of these adoptions were found to be unsuitable and (c) what was the average waiting time for adoption/immigration authorisation relating to children from (i) Romania, (ii) Brazil and (iii) Colombia.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Only very limited information is available except in relation to Romanian children brought here during the last two years. In 1990, 83, and in 1991, 13 Romanian children were brought to the United Kingdom without entry clearance with a view to adoption. No Romanian children have been brought to the United Kingdom without entry clearance so far this year. The average waiting time for decisions on entry clearance applications made on behalf of Romanian children for the purpose of adoption was approximately six weeks in 1991. Information is not held centrally on the progress and outcome of subsequent adoption proceedings in the United Kingdom.

  Punt-Gunning
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many black powder licences were issued in each of the last three years, by county, for the purpose of punt-gunning.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on the numbers of black powder licences—which were superseded on 1 November 1991 by explosives certificates—issued by chief officers, and their purpose, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state for each of the last five years for which figures are available the number of persons granted right of permanent stay broken down by country of origin.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on persons accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in the years 1986–90, by nationality, is published in table 14 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1990" (Cm 1571), a copy of which is in the Library. Corresponding information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Mr. John Kamara
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reach a decision regarding the case of Mr. J. Kamara, a constituent of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, who is serving a prison sentence.

  Mr. John Patten
  I expect to receive a police report on the many inquiries conducted in this case very soon. I will then be in a position to decide whether any action on my part is appropriate.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the names of the people who have written to him concerning the case of John Kamara, a prisoner; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. It is not our practice to publish the names of persons who have contacted us about individual cases. We have received many letters including more than 100 from Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament.

  Cash Limits
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Home Department what proposals he has for changes to the 1991–92 cash limits within his responsibilities and to his Department's running costs limit.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on class IX, vote 2, prisons, England and Wales, will be increased by £137,000,000 which, after the surrender of the increase of £3,949,000 for end-year flexibility announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 17 July 1991,Official Report, columns 185-88, will increase from £1,332,391,000 to £1,469,391,000. The additional provision is necessary because of the continuing need to pay for the cost of
  244
  keeping prisoners in police cells. Extra provision is also necessary to meet the construction costs of new prisons and for the accelerated integral sanitation programme. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The cash limit on class IX, vote 3 will be reduced by £19,000,000 from £890,952,000 to £871,952,000, to reflect a transfer of resources to class IX, vote 1 for the purpose of criminal injuries compensations payments and a special grant to the Northumbria police authority.

  The Home Office running cost limit will remain unchanged at £1,304,000,000.

  Firemen
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of(a) full-time firemen and (b) part-time firemen employed in the United Kingdom for each year since 1981.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information for England and Wales is given in the table. Questions relating to the fire service in other parts of the United Kingdom are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Year

  Number of full-time firefighters

  Number of part-time (retained) firefighters1

  1981

  34,223

  15,745

  1982

  34,117

  15,535

  1983

  34,206

  15,887

  1984

  34,536

  16,129

  1985

  34,575

  16,144

  1986

  34,783

  16,138

  1987

  34,515

  15,984

  1988

  35,011

  16,126

  1989

  34,784

  15,861

  1990

  35,002

  15,959

  1991

  35,162

  16,025

  1 These figures include wholetime firefighters with retained obligations

  Betting Offices
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received concerning the consultative document on the evening opening of licensed betting offices; and when he hopes to make a statement on his conclusions;

  (2) how many letters he has received for, and how many letters against, the evening opening of betting offices; and for how long he is prepared to consider further representations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since issuing our consultation document on the evening opening hours of licensed betting offices on 14 October, we have received representations on both the principle and the practicalities of evening opening of licensed betting offices. We have received 27 letters in favour of evening opening and 518 letters against it, as well as a petition against evening opening with some 1,650 signatures. A number of the letters on both sides represent the views of trade associations or other interest groups.

  We are now considering the representations received, in the light of which some further consultations may be necessary. It is not possible to predict at this stage how quickly that work can be completed, but we are prepared to consider further representations in the meantime.
  245
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to the precise times of evening opening of betting offices and days of the week and, specifically, the opening of betting offices on Sundays.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Our consultation document set out the main options for regulating the times and days of evening opening. We are considering the views expressed in response to that document before deciding whether betting offices should be allowed to open in the evenings and, if so, at what times. The consultation exercise does not extend to Sunday opening of betting offices on which we have no present plans to legislate.

  Street Deaths
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the figures for deaths on public streets in (i) London, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Birmingham, (iv) Liverpool and (v) England and Wales due to causes other than violence or road traffic accidents for the periods 1 October 1990 to 30 April 1991; and for the year ended 31 December 1991.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that to answer this question would involve disproportionate cost.

  Poland (Visas)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about visa requirements relating to Poland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Last year about 120 representations were received from right hon. and hon. Members about the visa requirement for Polish nationals, and about 50 letters from members of the public.

  A recent review of the visa requirement has led my right hon. Friend to conclude that it is too soon to assess the experience of some of our European partners who have abolished visas for polish nationals. My right hon. Friend has decided therefore to look again at the need for this requirement in the summer when the effect of visa abolition on other member states of the Community should be clearer.

  Solicitors' Telephone Calls
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate allegations by the Criminal Law Solicitors Association that telephone calls from solicitors to prisoners held by the City of London police are recorded and stored on tape.
  246
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police for the City of London that until recently all telephone calls to custody suites were tape recorded at a point after they had left the public network. This was done for operational purposes and overlooked the fact that privileged conversations between solicitors and their clients were also covered. Recordings of privileged conversations were never listened to by police officers and the tapes were held centrally in conditions of strict security, with access controlled by a senior officer and requiring knowledge of confidential codes. As soon as it was realised that privileged conversations were on tape, separate telephone lines which are not subject to tape recording were installed in custody suites.

  Mrs. Bushra Ahmed
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made a formal complaint to the appellate authorities at their failure to formally advise his Department of their refusal to grant leave to appeal to the IAT in the case of Mrs. Bushra Ahmed (IMP A399195/2); what prompted the file to come to light in May 1991; and for what reasons Mrs. Ahmed, to date, has not been issued with a visa following his advice to the post to issue her with a visa on 31 May 1991.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 January 1992]: The records kept by the immigration appellate authorities show that copies of the immigration appeals tribunal's determination refusing the Home Office leave to appeal against the adjudicator's decision to allow Mrs. Ahmed's appeal were sent out on 30 January 1990. It appears, however, that the determination was not at that stage received by the Home Office presenting officer. He noticed this in December 1990 when the file was brought forward by the procedures intended to track the progress of appeals. Unfortunately there was then some further delay within the Immigration and Nationality Department, which despite investigation cannot be accounted for, before the determination was forwarded to the high commission in Islamabad on 31 May 1991. I understand that the adjudicator's determination allowing Mrs. Ahmed's appeal arrived at the high commission on 12 June 1991 but there was then a clerical error and the papers were put away before a visa was issued.

  The high commission wrote to Mrs. Ahmed on 16 December 1991 inviting her to call in to collect her visa. To date she has not done so and a further invitation was sent on 23 January.

  I greatly regret the combination of errors which led to the issue of a visa to Mrs. Ahmed being so badly delayed. Officials are examining the procedures which are followed in such cases, in order to prevent any recurrence.

  Bail Offenders
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce his conclusions following the review of the recent studies of offending on bail.

  Mr. John Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 January, col. 314]: My Department has published today research and planning unit paper 65 "Offending while on bail: a survey of recent studies". A copy has been placed in the Library. The Government are considering, in the light of the survey, what further action is needed to reduce offending on bail, and we will make an announcement shortly.

  Fire Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the total number of business premises that have been damaged by fires caused by(a) arson, (b) accident and (c) unknown causes during each of the past 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 3 February 1992]: The available information relates to fires attended by local authority fire brigades and is shown in the following table.

  Fires in business premises1 attended by local authority fire brigades by supposed cause of fire, 1981–90

  United Kingdom

  Year

  Number of fires in business premises1 attended by local authority fire brigades

  Total

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Deliberate or possibly deliberate3

  Accidental

  Unknown

  1981

  18,077

  3,018

  13,614

  1,445

  1982

  18,282

  3,196

  13,926

  1,160

  1983

  18,310

  3,505

  13,784

  1,021

  1984

  19,317

  4,044

  14,283

  990

  1985

  19,316

  3,971

  14,559

  786

  1986

  18,970

  4,002

  14,214

  754

  1987

  18,542

  3,608

  14,297

  637

  21987

  20,228

  3,866

  15,663

  699

  21988

  20,717

  4,027

  16,008

  682

  21989

  21,145

  4,004

  16,578

  563

  P1990

  20,800

  4,270

  16,030

  500

  P Provisional.

  Source: Home Office Fire Statistics.
  1 Defined as buildings used for industrial, distribution, hotels, catering, transport, communication and financial trades.
  2 Definition of business premises from 1988 includes repair of consumer goods and services, accountancy, legal and other professional and technical services, 1987 also shown on an approximately comparable basis.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the numbers of mortgage repossessions in the Nottinghamshire and Mansfield areas by county court division for each year since 1979.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for the number of repossessions are not collected. The only information available on mortgage possession is the number of actions entered and orders made in each county court. The tables 248
  give the information for each county court in Nottinghamshire from 1987—the earliest year for which it is available. These figures do not indicate how many houses have been repossessed through the courts as not all of the orders made will have resulted in the execution of warrants of possession. At this stage the 1991 figures are provisional and therefore liable to revision in the future.

  Mortgage possession Actions entered and orders made in the Nottinghamshire county courts

  Court name

  Actions entered

  Orders made

  1987

  Mansfield

  518

  348

  Newark

  101

  57

  Nottingham

  1,492

  532

  Worksop

  312

  176

  1988

  Mansfield

  411

  340

  Newark

  72

  61

  Nottingham

  1,036

  600

  Worksop

  247

  184

  1989

  Mansfield

  445

  282

  Newark

  101

  48

  Nottingham

  1,085

  581

  Worksop

  244

  127

  1990

  Mansfield

  664

  437

  Newark

  139

  94

  Nottingham

  2,114

  1,062

  Worksop

  363

  257

  1991

  Mansfield

  922

  624

  Newark

  161

  112

  Nottingham

  2,235

  1,483

  Worksop

  445

  345

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any change has been made to the cash limit for the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class X vote 9 will be increased by £743,000 from £11,865,000 to £12,608,000.

  The additional provision is required to meet the cost of major accommodation works and the cost of the inquiry into the supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he proposes any changes to the Serious Fraud Office's cash and running costs limits for 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class X vote 7 will be increased by £110,000 from £8,862,000 to £8,972,000. Within this total the Department's running costs limit will be increased by £110,000 from £8,132,000 to £8,242,000.

  This increase will enable the Serious Fraud Office to meet additional administrative costs associated with the

  249
  investigation into the Maxwell group of companies and for further inquiries into the affairs of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he proposes any changes to the Crown Prosecution Service's cash and running costs limits for 1991–92.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class X, vote 5 will be increased by £300,000 from £157,433,000 to £157,733,000. Within this total the Department's running cost limit will be increased by £3,350,000 from £149,390,000 to £152,740,000.

  Additional provision is required to enable the Crown Prosecution Service to meet the cost of implementation of the War Crimes Act 1991 and the costs of employing additional legal staff. Most of the increase in running costs expenditure has been offset by savings on capital expenditure.

  The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Attorney-General whether any changes are proposed to the class X, vote 12 running costs limit for the Public Record Office.

  The Attorney-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary token supplementary estimate, the running costs limit for class X, vote 12 will be increased by £201,000 from £19,292,000 to £19,493,000. This increase covers costs associated with agency launch and certain payments to Property Holdings, and will be contained within the overall cash limit as a result of increased appropriations in aid.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Information Systems
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will name the parties to whom his Department has sent, and with whom his Department has consulted on, the OECD produced guidelines for the security of information systems, explanatory memorandum, and recommendation of the council: draft documents (reference No. DSTI/ICCP/AH(90)21/Rev3).

  Mr. Leigh
  During preparatory work on draft OECD guidelines for the security of information systems and associated documents, which continue to be in draft, the Department of Trade and Industry has consulted all United Kingdom Government Departments having an interest. The Department has also consulted its Information Technology Security Advisory Group, comprising a range of IT security specialists from the private sector and academia.

  The OECD is also advised direct on the draft guidelines through information system security experts on its Business and Industry Advisory Committee, which includes a number of representatives from the United Kingdom.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any changes will be made to his Department's cash limit and running costs limit for 1991–92.

  Mr. Lilley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class IV, vote 2 (support for industry, international trade, statutory and regulatory work, consumer protection, and administration) will be reduced by £5,000,000 from £763,019,000 to £758,019,000. The running costs limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be reduced by £2,238,000 from £258,236,000 to £255,998,000.

  The supplementary estimate covers a rise of £9,245,000 in gross provision for the consultancy initiatives, reflecting higher than expected demand for the scheme, and a rise of £1,587,000 in gross provision for consumer and investor protection, reflecting increased expenditure on companies investigations. These increases are wholly offset by reductions in gross provision and increases in appropriations in aid elsewhere on the vote, including an increase of £2,147,000 in receipts appropriated in aid of the consultancy initiatives.

  There is an increase of £4,346,000 in departmental capital expenditure and research establishments' major building works and capital expenditure as a result of the end-year flexibility arrangements for capital announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991, Official Report, columns 183-88.

  There are reductions of £2,828,000 in voted provision for long term loans to the Patent Office Executive Agency trading fund and of £2,000,000 for long term loans to Companies House Executive Agency trading fund, reflecting a lower requirement for such loans than originally forecast. There are also reductions in net provision of £520,000 for the Patent Office and £561,000 for Companies House in respect of the period before they became trading funds, 1 April to 30 September 1991.

  There are transfers within provision for Radiocommunications, Warren Spring Laboratory and the National Physical Laboratory executive agencies. These transfers have no effect on the net total for each agency.

  There are also a number of other minor changes to the vote, as shown in the supplementary estimate, to reflect the latest forecasts of expenditure and receipts.

  The reduction in the running cost limit mostly reflects the transfer of funds for routine maintenance and rent to capital.

  As supplementary estimates cannot reduce total voted provision, the supplementary estimate gives effect to these changes through an increase of a net token £1,000 in class IV, vote 2. The accompanying cash limit reduction of £5,000,000 for trading funds and greater Insolvency Service receipts than shown in the supplementary estimate itself.

DEFENCE

  "Options for Change"
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish details of defence expenditure changes under "Options for Change" already implemented and those envisaged for the next 12 months.
  251
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Details of trends in Defence spending between 1990–91 and 1994–95 are published today in "The Government's Expenditure Plans for the Ministry of Defence" (Cmd 1901)—which will be placed in the Library of the House. These figures take full account of plans developed as a result of earlier work on "Options for Change".

  Gulf War
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence his Department has received that ammunition supplied by United Kingdom companies under the Jordan defence packages was used by Iraqi forces during military operations in the Gulf.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes any changes to the defence cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Tom King
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary spring supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  Defence cash limits

  £'000s

  Class and vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit

  I, 1

  10,460,332

  +130,116

  10,590,448

  I, 2

  9,549,823

  +329,257

  9,879,080

  I, 3

  1,620,347

  -4,958

  1,615,389

  I, 4

  1,888,094

  -80,737

  1,807,357

  I, 5

  513,918

  +18,371

  532,289

  These changes increase the block defence cash limit by £392,049,000 from £24,032,514,000 to £24,424,563,000. They are principally to cover increased expenditure arising from the United Kingdom military commitment in the Gulf. The total increase this year is thus about £1·5 billion which is in line with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 18 April 1991, Official Report, at column 558.

  The changes also take account of a transfer of provision from class I, votes 3, 4 and 5 to cover forecasts of increased expenditure on class I, vote 1 and a decrease of £71,211,000 to compensate for an overspend on class I, votes 1, 4 and 5 in financial year 1990–91. This follows the normal practice of reducing the limit for one year by the amount of any overspend in the previous year.

  The increase in defence provision for 1991–92 will be charged to the reserve and it will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure. The increase will be largely offset by the generous cash contributions from other Governments received this financial year in respect of the United Kingdom military commitment in the Gulf.

  Security Guards (Faslane and Coulport)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring his Department carries out of the hours worked by and hourly rates payable to private security guards at Faslane and Coulport.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence does not employ civilian security guards at the Clyde submarine 252
  base. Civilian security firms, hired by the Property Services Agency and its contractors, are used at construction sites at Faslane and Coulport. The terms and conditions of these personnel are a matter for their employers.

  Company Contracts
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on letting further contracts to companies which have been convicted of breaches of health and safety legislation committed in the course of fulfilling earlier contracts with his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A breach of health and safety legislation would not preclude a company from receiving contracts from the Ministry of Defence, provided remedial action was proposed, or had been undertaken, to the satisfaction of the appropriate enforcement authority and having regard to operational and other considerations.

  Health and safety legislation is a matter for the Secretary of State for Employment.

  Soviet Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Ministry of Defence officials will be sent on the technical mission to Moscow to assess the immediate needs on handling surplus Soviet nuclear weapons and safeguarding nuclear materials.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed planning for co-operation has not yet been completed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will report to the House as soon as possible.

  Soviet Union (Members' Visits)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date of each briefing afforded to hon. Members by his Department in advance of visits to the former Soviet Union since May 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not available, as the Department has no need to maintain such records.

  Polaris Submarines
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the requirement for a fifth Polaris submarine.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No assessment of the possible requirement for a fifth Polaris submarine has been made since the early 1970s.

  Russian Armed Forces
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence personnel will be sent to the Russian Ministry of Defence to discuss the control and financing of armed forces.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government have offered to send a small number of officials from the Ministry of Defence to the Russian Ministry of Defence to advise on the restructuring and control and financing of armed forces in a democratic society.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Customs Officers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) in which ports and airports the main reductions in manning levels of customs preventative officers will take place;

  (2) how many customs preventative officers will be in post on the 31 March 1993.

  (3) what consideration he gave to the effective control of drug trafficking in approving the recent reductions by the Board of Customs and Excise of the number of front-line customs officers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In determining Customs anti-smuggling resources required for 1992–93 the aim has been to provide a service which is better equipped and targeted at areas of highest risk. A further consideration is the more flexible approach being adopted in the way in which the controls are organised; this involves a move away from the static controls previously used.

  This approach has been adopted nationally as a result of the review of anti-smuggling controls completed by the Department in 1989. The changes in no way reduce the effectiveness of controls against drug trafficking. Customs are also taking steps to ensure provision of more timely and adequate intelligence in discussion with trade organisations and with other Customs and other law enforcement services.

  Changes at particular ports and airports depend upon the extent to which local heads of executive units will be able to make use of flexible anti-smuggling teams and the risk category of the traffic in particular locations. Details by port and airport are not yet available.

  The total number of anti-smuggling staff employed at the frontier at 31 March 1993 is expected to be just under 3,500. These staff will be supplemented by further resources on associated duties.

  Small Businesses
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has about the extent of compliance by branch offices of the clearing banks with the codes of business practice concerning small businesses agreed by their head offices.

  Mr. Maples
  Officials are currently reviewing the codes and how they are being implemented. All the codes establish complaint procedures for customers who feel they have been treated badly, and so, in the first instance, it is for the customers to judge compliance with the codes and to use the banks' published complaints procedure, where necessary.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the outturn for 1991 and the forecast for 1992 of the United Kingdom's total gross and net contributions to the European Community budget, in current and constant 1990 prices.

  Mr. Maude
  A final outturn figure for 1991 and a precise current price forecast for 1992 of the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the European 254
  Community budget are not yet available. They will be published in the "Statement on the 1992 Community Budget" before the Easter recess.

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the balance of trade in manufactures with(a) the rest of the EC and (b) the rest of the world, for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures for the balance of trade in manufactures with the rest of the EC are published in tables II and V of the CSO's "Business Monitor: Overseas Trade Statistics of the UK." Figures for the balance of trade in manufactures with the rest of the world are published in table A9 of the CSO's "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and table 2.3 of the "Pink Book, the UK Balance of Payments". All three publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast of the public sector borrowing requirement in 1992–93; and what percentage of gross domestic product he expects that to be.

  Mr. Mellor
  A forecast will be published in the 1992 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Gross Domestic Product Growth
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate for gross domestic product growth in 1992.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend will publish a new forecast in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" on 10 March.

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the overall figure of seized illegal drugs detected by customs officers in each of the last 12 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is as follows:

  Kilos

  Cannabis

  Heroin

  Cocaine

  Amphetamine

  1980

  25,610

  38

  35

  1981

  24,188

  87

  13

  8

  1982

  16,245

  183

  12

  2

  1983

  20,692

  212

  73

  13

  1984

  26,256

  312

  35

  19

  1985

  20,905

  334

  78

  26

  1986

  22,298

  179

  99

  29

  1987

  16,292

  190

  362

  15

  1988

  44,018

  230

  283

  18

  1989

  50,715

  331

  424

  22

  1990

  24,581

  576

  561

  81

  1991

  22,500

  356

  1,061

  1473

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for main types of drugs.

  2. 1991 figures are provisional.

  1 Figure includes approximately 285 kilos of MDA a derivative of MDMA (known colloquially as 'Ecstasy').

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the cash and running cost limits for 1991–92 in respect of the Paymaster General's office.

  Mr. Maples
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Paymaster General's Office (class XVIII, vote 12) will be increased by £90,000 from £21,358,000 to £21,448,000 and the running cost limit increased by £300,000 from £19,462,000 to £19,762,000. These increases reflect additional costs associated with the systems required to operate on a repayment basis, and to meet additional costs incurred in the ending of weekly pension books.

  These increases will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is proposing any change to the Central Office of Information cash limit and running costs limit for 1991–92 and to the services provided on an allied basis by the Central Office of Information for 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 14 will be increased by £30,000 from £ 28,109,000 to £28,139,000 and the running costs limit by £22,000 from £ 1,145,000 to £1,167,000. This is accounted for by higher than anticipated expenditure on services to Parliament (£12,000) and the royal household (£18,000). The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the cash and running cost limits for 1991–92 for the National Investment and Loans Office.

  Mr. Maples
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 11 will be increased by £449,000 from £1,000 to £450,000. The additional provision is required to cover

  Region

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Registration

  Deregistration

  Registration

  Deregistration

  Registration

  Deregistration

  Registration

  Deregistration

  Registration

  Deregistration

  Scotland

  12,883

  10,602

  13,565

  14,657

  10,737

  8,137

  15,350

  12,243

  13,395

  17,911

  North East England

  17,236

  14,582

  20,771

  16,482

  23,125

  16,060

  20,023

  17,018

  17,421

  21,613

  North West England

  22,585

  19,964

  26,966

  22,459

  29,806

  22,281

  28,250

  21,417

  24,618

  28,869

  Wales

  7,087

  5,796

  9,259

  8,835

  9,919

  7,362

  8,960

  7,323

  7,013

  10,245

  Midlands

  42,501

  32,483

  51,411

  45,945

  54,382

  36,896

  58,294

  38,018

  39,689

  50,019

  South East England

  71,671

  49,378

  81,533

  59,561

  91,403

  58,014

  82,732

  61,062

  71,431

  90,251

  South West England

  24,741

  18,686

  30,585

  29,100

  32,448

  21,614

  26,360

  21,273

  22,415

  30,086

  Northern Ireland

  3,413

  2,920

  3,952

  7,498

  4,074

  3,224

  4,226

  3,113

  3,607

  3,783

  Notes:

  1. Regions based on aggregation of local VAT office areas.

  2. "New registrations" include both first and other registration, for example a sole proprietor taking on a partner or forming a limited company.

  3. De-registrations occur for various reasons other than ceasing trading, for example due to a change of status or falling below the threshold. The figures for 1991 reflect the substantial increase in the VAT threshold in the 1991 Budget.

WALES

  Milford Haven
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what feasibility studies have been initiated by the Welsh Office into the development of Milford Haven into the
  256
  a shortfall in fees payable on loans to local authorities. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure. The running costs limit will be reduced by £20,000 from £1,297,000 £1,277,000.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there will be any changes to the Treasury's running costs limits in 1991–92.

  Mr. Maples
  The Treasury's running costs limit for 1991–92 is being reduced by £1,213,000 from £86,603,000 to £85,390,000 in order to meet an increased requirement for capital expenditure and an increase in the grant in aid to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. These changes will be reflected in a token supplementary estimate which will be presented for parliamentary approval in due course.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the retail prices index following the abolition of the community charge and its replacement by the council tax.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I intend to reconvene the retail prices index advisory committee with the following terms of reference:"To advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implication for the RPI of the abolition of the community charge and its replacement by the council tax; to review progress on implementing the committee's previous recommendation on the inclusion in the index of expenditure on holidays; and to review the present treatment in the index of new cars. In framing its recommendations the committee is asked to take account of the practices in other European Community countries."

  VAT
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total number of VAT registrations and deregistrations by region for the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: The information is as follows:

  major deep water port to serve the western arc seaboard of the European Community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No representations have been received on this matter, but we are aware that Dyfed county council is looking at development opportunities in conjuction with
  257
  other organisations bordering on the western are seaboard. My Department, the Welsh Development Agency and other appropriate non-departmental public bodies will continue wherever possible to assist measures to develop Milford Haven's potential.

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements for transfer of dowry funds with resettled mental handicap patients to local authorities have been made in each regional health authority; under what terms these payments are made; and if he will list by regional health authority the sums transferred each year on this basis.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Under the all-Wales mental handicap strategy we have introduced arrangements which provide for the transfer of blocks of resources from district health authorities to local authorities as people with a mental handicap move into the community in accordance with agreed joint county plans. This was done by means of a circular to all DHAs and county councils last September. I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. The first formal transfers of resources under this system will be made early in the new financial year.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sales of capital assets have arisen from closures of mental handicap hospitals; and if he will list the assets disposed of and the money raised by each sale.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Since the all-Wales mental handicap strategy was launched in March 1983 two mental handicap hospitals in Wales, Drymma Hall—West Glamorgan health authority —and Allt-y-Mynydd—East Dyfed health authority-have closed. The proceeds of sale, £187,800 and £132,000 respectively, were returned to the authorities concerned and redeployed to improve services for people with mental handicap within the authorities concerned.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by staff grade and specialty, the number of full-time equivalent medical and nursing posts available to health service hospitals in 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on posts is not available centrally.

  Readily available information on whole-time equivalent numbers of hospital medical staff by grade and specialty is shown in various editions of the publication "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for Wales", copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Figures for 1976 are shown in table 3.03, volume 4, 1977; for 1981 in table 3.06, volume 9, 1982; and for 1986 in table 3.06, volume 14, 1987. Information on hospital and community nursing and midwifery staff is also shown—table 3.08(b), volume 4, 1977; table 3.10, volume 9, 1982; and table 3.10, volume 14, 1987. There have been changes over time and figures for different years may not be comparable. Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies have been conducted, or are under way, into the administrative work loads of doctors, nurses and clinical staff in the professions associated with medicine; and if he will make a statement.
  258
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  No studies that specifically address the administrative work loads of these staff groups have been undertaken in Wales.

  However, such measurements are likely to be facilitated for the professions allied to medicine staff group as a result of a current study—"Workload Measurement Tools"—which the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is undertaking at unit level.

  District Nurses
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by health authority the number of full-time equivalent district nursing posts and the number of potential elderly domiciliary clients, as defined by the Department of the Environment under section 80 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, for 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information on posts is not available centrally; complete information on the number of staff in post is only available for all nursing and midwifery staff, and not for district nurses.

  Section 80 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 requires the Secretary of State to report how revenue support grant is distributed between Welsh local authorities. The formulae in Wales do not explicitly refer to "potential elderly domiciliary clients"—the needs of these people being subsumed in a more general allocation procedure.

  Open-heart Operations
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 76, what was the number of open-heart operations carried out at the University hospital of Wales, the Heath, Cardiff, in each year since 1982 inclusive.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, information provided by the centrally-funded regional cardiac centre at University hospital of Wales from 1984–85 shows that the following operations were undertaken:

  Adult

  By-pass

  Others

  1984–85

  528

  30

  1985–86

  573

  26

  1986–87

  500

  48

  1987–88

  566

  —

  1988–89

  522

  90

  1989–90

  561

  77

  1990–91

  577

  65

  11991–92

  549

  60

  Paediatric

  1 1991–92

  27

  15

  1 To 31 January 1992.

  I have recently announced additional contract funding of more than £5 million to expand facilities at UHW to enable it to perform 800 adult open-heart operations per annum and £2·5 million over the next three years to complete the development of the paediatric cardiac unit and equip it to undertake 200 operations each year for children of all ages.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report,

  259
  column 76, if he will give the average length of the waiting list for open-heart surgery in the catchment area of the University hospital of Wales, the Heath, Cardiff, for each year since 1982 inclusive and for the whole of Wales, on the same basis.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The only information held centrally relates to waiting lists for cardiac surgery. This is published in "Welsh Hospital Waiting List Bulletin 1991: No. 2" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Recycling
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the measures undertaken by his Department to achieve the target set for the proportion of household waste to be recycled by 2000; and what is the estimated impact of each measure.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The Department is involved in a number of measures jointly with the Department of the Environment as part of national programmes; and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the document "This Common Inheritance—The First Year Report" published in September 1991. The combined effect of these measures is designed to minimise waste and encourage recycling. From the information in the reports to be published under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 we will be able to assess the extent of any further action that we will need to take.

  Singleton Hospital, Swansea
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what final date he has to announce his decision on the recommendation of 28 January by West Glamorgan relating to the future of the night casualty service at Singleton hospital, Swansea.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There is no prescribed time limit for considering issues such as this. The one-month period for representations to be made to my right hon. Friend on these proposals will end on 28 February. A decision will be made when all representations received have been fully considered.

  Soft Landscaping
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue a planning policy guidance note along the lines proposed by the Horticultural Traders Association dealing with soft landscaping in association with development proposals.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have not seen a copy of the Horticultural Traders Association's proposals, but I join my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in commending the HTA for reminding local planning authorities of the importance of appropriate landscaping for development proposals.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the initiatives taken by his Department to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and indicate the estimated reduction for each initiative by(a) 2000 and (b)
  260
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 6 February.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for his Department in the current financial year.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Yes. Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limit for class XVI, vote 4 will be reduced by £12,644,000 from £156,567,000 to £143,923,000; the cash limit for class XVI, vote 5 will be increased by £641,000 from £393,285,000 to £393,926,000; the cash limit for class XVI, vote 8 will be reduced by £20,912,000 from £1,143,460,000 to £1,122,548,000; the cash limit for class XVI, vote 9 will be increased by £ 304,000 from £55,406,000 to £55,710,000; the cash limit for class XVI, vote 10 will be reduced by £6,254,000 from £1,775,320,000 to £1,769,066,000. In addition the local authority capital cash limit—WO/LACAP—will be increased by £22,700,000 from £374,662,000 to £397,362,000.

  The reduction in the cash limit for vote 4 reflects a lower take-up on employment training than expected. The Welsh Office contribution to the Department of Employment in respect of training activities will be reduced accordingly.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 5 reflects (i) a transfer of provision— £501,000—from class XVI, vote 10 to cover the costs of Bishop Vaughan school which has opted for grant maintained status; (ii) additional provision for the National Biological Standards Board—£63,000; and (iii) provision to cover a grant towards the capital expenditure on the former Cwmbran development corporation's approved roads programme—£77,000.

  The net reduction in the cash limit for vote 8 is in respect of: (i) A non-recurrent reduction of £22,000,000 which is required because of technical changes to the present arrangements for the payment of income tax, national insurance and superannuation contributions by health authorities and family health service authorities. This change will mean that contributions for March 1992 will not be drawn from resources in this financial year. There will be no effect upon health service provision in 1991–92 or subsequent years. (ii) An additional sum of £1,200,000 to cover the cost of expenditure incurred by some health authorities in Wales in preparing to treat Gulf war casualties. (iii) A transfer of £38,000 from the Department of Health to provide additional resources for occupational therapy training. (iv) A transfer of £150,000 to class XVI, vote 7 to meet additional costs incurred in non-cash limited pharmaceutical services.

  The increase in the cash limit for vote 9 is in respect of the take-up of end year flexibility entitlement from 1990–91 for running costs expenditure—£186,000— and capital administration costs—£118,000—as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991, Official Report, columns 185-190.

  The reduction in the cash limit for vote 10 comprises (i) the transfer of provision to class XVI, vote 5 in respect of the Bishop Vaughan school—£501,000; and (ii) a reduction in the provision for the costs of council tax banding—£3,253,000—and for prior-year adjustments in local authorities' entitlement to rate support grant —£2,500,000.
  261
  The net increase of £22,700,000 in the local authority capital cash limit— WO/LACAP—represents additional provision for home renovation grants.

  Hospital Referrals
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will order an investigation into the number of patients in each health authority in Wales who are awaiting referral to a hospital(a) outside the authority's control and (b) outside the authority's contractual arrangements.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: District health authorities in Wales have assured me that they are not aware of any patients awaiting referral to hospitals in either of these circumstances.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Astronomy
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of funding for astronomy in the next three years.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I understand that the Science and Engineering Research Council plans the following provision for the funding of astronomy and planetary science:

  1992–3 £million

  1993–4 £million

  1994–5 £million

  83·6

  90·1

  94·5

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what order, made under section 134 of the Education Reform Act 1988, he made the conditions on the funding by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council which he notified to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on 19 February 1991 and to the Committee of Directors of Polytchnics on 2 September 1991.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under section 134(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988, the Secretary of State may make grants to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding council of such amounts and subject to such conditions as he may determine. Section 134(7) provides that such conditions shall not relate to making of grants or other payments by the council to any specified institution. Neither of those subsections provides for the making of an order and none was made. Section 134(8) and (9) gives power to the Secretary of state to give directions to the funding council by order but that power was not exercised.

  Polytechnics and Colleges
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of students enrolled on full-time and part-time studies in polytechnics and colleges(a) in 1979–80, or at incorporation if later and (b) currently.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The numbers of students enrolled on full-time courses and part-time courses at polytechnics 262
  and colleges in Great Britain in 1979–80 were 217,400 and 168,100 respectively. The comparable figures for 1990–91 were 374,800 and 262,600.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in respect to the student loan scheme(a) the most recent figures for loan applications received, (b) the number of loans made, (c) the value of loans made and (d) the total costs, including VAT, incurred administering the scheme.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  As at 4 February 1992, Student Loans Company Limited had received 149,576 applications for loans for the academic year 1991–92 and had paid 125,811 loans worth £65·784 million. The company spent £5·41 million on operating the loans scheme between 1 September 1991 and 31 January 1992. This included net VAT costs of £0·94 million.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the figures for the number or percentage of qualified leavers and young entrants into higher education, qualified participation indices, for 1979–80 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Great Britain

  1979–80 actual

  1991–92 Projection

  Qualified leaver index

  14·7

  23·2

  Age participation index

  12·4

  22·5

  Qualified participation index

  84·0

  97·1

  The figures for 1991–92 are taken from the Department's latest projection as at April 1991.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will show the amount of the student maintenance grant in 1978–79 and 1991–92 in constant 1978–79 pounds.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The maximum basic maintenance grant for students in London as defined in the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations was £1,315 for the 1978–79 academic year. The comparable rate for 1991–92 is £2,845 which, together with the maximum full year student loan for London—£660—brings the available resources per student to £3,505, or £1,323 at constant 1978–79 prices. These comparisons take no account of changes in the composition of the mandatory award.

  Student Numbers
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current number of home students studying(a) full-time at universities, polytechnics and colleges and (b) part-time at universities, polytechnics and colleges and at the Open university.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The numbers of home students studying full time in universities, polytechnics and colleges in Great Britain in 1990–91 were 296,200, and 353,500
  263
  respectively. The comparable figures for part-time students were 45,200 and 270,000 respectively, with a further 95,000 students enrolled at the Open university.

  Student Drop-outs
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the percentage drop-out rate of British home students before achieving diplomas and degrees in full-time and part-time education in the United Kingdom in 1979–80 and 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Data for universities are not available in this form. However, table 10 of "University. Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the UK", 1990 edition, indicates the proportions of full-time and sandwich students ending their studies unsuccessfully. This is shown for each university cost-centre, but no overall figure is computed. A copy is in the Library.

  For polytechnics and colleges in England, some 16 per cent. of full-time and sandwich first-degree students commencing courses in 1987 did not return to the second year of the course.

  St. Fidelis School, Erith
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science when he expects to announce a decision on the proposed expansion and extension of St. Fidelis primary school in Erith; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The section 13 proposals published by the governors of St. Fidelis RC primary school are currently being considered. My right hon. and learned Friend will announce his decision shortly.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set out the total number of pupils attending grant-maintained secondary schools on the latest available figures.

  Mr. Eggar
  There are some 103,000 pupils attending secondary schools that are now operating as grant-maintained, based on January 1991 pupil returns.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes any changes to cash limits on votes within his responsibility for 1991–92.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class XI, vote 2, higher and further education, vote 4, administration and vote 5, science, will be amended. The cash limit changes are as follows:

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit

  £

  £

  £

  XI.2

  2,916,803,000

  +12,188,000

  2,928,991,000

  XI.4

  106,617,000

  -1,984,000

  104,633,000

  XI.5

  927,455,000

  +4,484,000

  931,939,000

  The increase on class XI, vote 2 includes the full take-up of £2,688,000 capital end-year flexibility entitlement
  264
  announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 July 1991, at columns 186-89. It also includes £2,500,000 additional grant-in-aid to the Universities Funding Council as a contribution towards the increased cost to universities of employing clinical academic staff following the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body pay settlement; and provision of £7,000,000 to enable the Open university to purchase the freehold of its site at Walton hall, Milton Keynes. These increases will be met from the Reserve.

  The cash limit reduction of £1,984,000 on class XI, vote 4 offsets part of the increase to the cash limit on the science budget, class XI, vote 5.

  Of the increase of £4,484,000 in class XI, vote 5, £1,000,000 is to enable the Medical Research Council to meet part of the cost of the clinical research initiative; £1,500,000 is to enable the Science and Engineering Research Council—SERC —to meet the costs of providing buildings to support the work undertaken by holders of SERC grants in higher education institutions; and the remaining £1,984,000 is to enable the Agricultural and Food Research Council to transfer to Unilever plc provision in respect of pensions of staff who were formerly employed by the Plant Breeding Institute. These increases are wholly offset by proceeds from the sale of capital assets which were surrendered to the Consolidated Fund in 1990–91 and by the cash limit reduction on class XI, vote 4. The current cash limit of £927,445,000 on class XI, vote 5 includes an increase of £7,000,000 which I announced in the House on 12 June 1991, at column 356, but which is also subject to parliamentary approval of the spring supplementary estimate.

  University of Wales (Irish Students)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students from the Republic of Ireland are presently receiving their higher education at each of the colleges of the University of Wales; and what is the estimated contribution of his Department towards their tuition fees.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In academic year 1990–91 there were 177 students from the Irish Republic attending higher education courses at the university of Wales. Information as to numbers attending the university's constituent colleges is not collected centrally. In 1990–91 an estimated £220,000 was paid in fees-only mandatory awards to Irish undergraduate students attending the university of Wales.

THE ARTS

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what proposals he has for changes to the cash and running costs limits for his Department's votes in 1991–92.

  Mr. Renton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary spring supplementary estimates, the cash limits of the following votes will be changed as indicated:

  Class and Vote

  Current cash limit

  Change

  Revised cash limit

  £

  £

  £

  XII.1

  201,484,000

  +339,000

  201,823,000

  XII.2

  225,222,000

  +4,070,000

  229,292,000

  XII.3

  131,948,000

  +1,000

  131,949,000

  265
  Increased provision of £339,000 is being sought in a spring supplementary estimate on class XII, vote 1, to meet the additional costs to certain national museums and galleries of the payment of contributions in lieu of national non-domestic rates. The additional costs of £640,000 are being partly offset by savings of £301,000 elsewhere on the vote.

  Provision is being sought on vote 2 for £500,000 to meet the initial costs of Government support for the European arts festival, 1992; and for £3,570,000 to augment the main estimate provision for assets accepted in lieu of tax. A token supplementary estimate of £1,000 will be presented in respect of vote 3 to secure parliamentary authority to the appropriation in aid in favour of the British library of part of the receipts form the sale of the library's premises at Store street.

  The additional provision sought, £4,410,000, will be charged to the reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has for changes to the 1991–92 cash limit for the office of the Minister for the Civil Service.

  Mr. Renton
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (class XIX, vote 1) will be increased by £217,000 from £41,721,000 to £41,938,000. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  The increase is required to cover the cost of physical security improvements, refurbishment work in 10 Downing street and the cost of additional staff on outward secondment (this latter charge is offset by increased appropriations in aid). In addition appropriations in aid have been amended to take account of the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency becoming ineligible to claim VAT refunds on contracted out services. The Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency's capital provision has been reduced to reflect a reassessment of its capital equipment requirements.

  Some of the changes in provision have a consequent effect on the Department's running costs limit which will be increased by £141,000 from £49,052,000 to £49,193,000.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training Credits
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on how the youth training guarantee applies to young people in the areas covered by training credits.

  Mr. Jackson
  Training credits operate within the YT framework and the YT guarantee continues to apply.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of each review of the systems of training credits which have been piloted during the last year.
  266
  Mr. Jackson
  We hope to issue a report in the spring on the results of the evaluation of the training credits pilot schemes during their first nine months of operation. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of each of the proposals to extend the system of training credits.

  Mr. Jackson
  No. The information contained in the proposals is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evalution of training credits was conducted by his Department before 26 November 1991.

  Mr. Jackson
  At 26 November 1991, an interim study of the pilots had been completed by the training standards inspectorate in conjunction with the careers service inspectorate. External research in each pilot area had also been commissioned. We hope to publish evaluation results from the first nine months of operating training credits in the spring.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if it remains his policy that the terms and arrangements outlined in the White Paper, "Competing for Quality", should apply in respect of his Department's negotiations with the training and enterprise councils and the TECs' negotiations with local providers of training.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department negotiates a performance based contract with TECs with quality and value for money very much in mind. Stretching but fair targets are set. Negotiations between TECs and their providers is a matter for the two parties concerned.

  Earnings
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will show for full-time workers the percentage earning less than £180 and £190 giving the information for(a) women and (b) men, (1) manual, (2) non-manual and (3) all workers, including overtime pay and excluding overtime pay for (i) Scotland, (ii) the regions of Scotland and (iii) Great Britain;

  (2) if he will show for full-time workers the percentage earning less than £130 and £140 per week giving the information for (a) women and (b) men. (1) manual, (2) non-manual and (3) all workers, including overtime pay and excluding overtime pay for (i) Scotland, (ii) the regions of Scotland and (iii) Great Britain.

  Mr. Forth
  The information available from the 1991 new earnings survey is given in the tables.

  Full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (excluding overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual Women

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries/Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  34·6

  48·7

  97·4

  97·4

  Grampian

  56·7

  68·7

  88·1

  92·5

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  267

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Lothian

  35·3

  48·7

  82·4

  84·9

  Strathclyde

  38·6

  48·1

  77·2

  82·3

  Tayside

  44·6

  54·2

  88·0

  90·4

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  42·1

  52·8

  83·3

  87·3

  Great Britain

  38·3

  48·3

  78·3

  82·6

  Non-Manual Women

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  19·6

  25·5

  56·9

  61·4

  Dumfries/Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  16·3

  20·2

  48·3

  51·7

  Grampian

  15·1

  20·5

  45·7

  47·6

  Highland

  20·7

  27·3

  47·9

  57·0

  Lothian

  10·6

  15·8

  43·7

  48·2

  Strathclyde

  13·3

  18·8

  44·3

  50·8

  Tayside

  13·5

  17·6

  42·3

  46·8

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  20·1

  26·8

  45·0

  53·0

  Scotland

  14·0

  19·4

  45·5

  50·8

  Great Britain

  10·5

  15·1

  37·4

  42·6

  All Women

  Borders

  34·1

  43·5

  71·8

  75·3

  Central

  27·3

  35·1

  65·4

  70·2

  Dumfries/Galloway

  33·0

  39·4

  67·0

  73·4

  Fife

  21·9

  28·9

  63·3

  65·6

  Grampian

  22·4

  28·9

  53·1

  55·5

  Highland

  26·0

  33·6

  55·5

  63·0

  Lothian

  14·2

  20·5

  49·2

  53·4

  Strathclyde

  18·3

  24·7

  50·8

  57·1

  Tayside

  20·9

  26·3

  53·1

  57·1

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  25·8

  33·0

  52·2

  59·3

  Scotland

  19·7

  26·2

  53·2

  58·2

  Great Britain

  15·6

  21·2

  45·0

  50·0

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: "—" denotes sample size too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

  Full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (including overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual Women

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries/Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  33·3

  43·6

  87·2

  89·7

  Grampian

  55·2

  67·2

  83·6

  89·6

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  27·7

  42·9

  73·9

  79·8

  Strathclyde

  35·9

  43·5

  69·3

  75·0

  Tayside

  42·2

  51·8

  84·3

  86·7

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  39·2

  48·1

  75·9

  80·7

  Great Britain

  34·7

  43·5

  72·4

  77·1

  Non-Manual Women

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  19·0

  24·2

  51·0

  56·9

  Dumfries/Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  12·9

  18·0

  44·4

  48·9

  Grampian

  14·2

  19·9

  44·2

  45·7

  Highlaŉd

  17·4

  24·0

  45·5

  56·2

  Lothian

  9·5

  14·4

  40·5

  45·8

  Strathclyde

  11·4

  16·8

  41·1

  47·5

  Tayside

  12·7

  16·5

  41·9

  45·7

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  17·4

  24·2

  42·3

  51·7

  Scotland

  12·4

  17·7

  42·6

  48·1

  Great Britain

  9·5

  13·8

  35·3

  40·4

  268

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  All Women

  Borders

  31·8

  40·0

  69·4

  74·l

  Central

  26·3

  32·2

  57·6

  62·9

  Dumfries/Galloway

  31·9

  35·1

  64·9

  71·3

  Fife

  19·1

  25·8

  57·4

  61·3

  Grampian

  21·4

  28·1

  51·0

  53·4

  Highland

  23·3

  29·5

  51·4

  60·3

  Lothian

  12·1

  18·5

  45·3

  50·7

  Strathclyde

  16·3

  22·1

  46·7

  53·0

  Tayside

  19·7

  24·9

  52·0

  55·4

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  23·6

  29·7

  48·4

  56·6

  Scotland

  17·9

  23·9

  49·4

  54·7

  Great Britain

  14·2

  19·3

  42·2

  47·2

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: "—" denotes sample size too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

  Full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (excluding overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual Men

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  5·8

  11·6

  31·9

  41·5

  Dumfries/Galloway

  7·8

  8·6

  47·4

  52·6

  Fife

  9·2

  11·6

  42·8

  48·0

  Grampian

  8·8

  13·1

  34·9

  40·4

  Highland

  6·1

  16·0

  48·9

  55·0

  Lothian

  9·1

  14·3

  39·9

  47·5

  Strathclyde

  9·6

  13·5

  37·9

  45·5

  Tayside

  10·6

  17·6

  49·6

  57·0

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  7·4

  15·3

  43·2

  50·0

  Scotland

  9·2

  13·7

  39·4

  46·6

  Great Britain

  7·0

  10·8

  33·1

  39·7

  Non-Manual Men

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  2·8

  3·9

  14·0

  17·3

  Dumfries/Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  4·6

  8·0

  13·7

  14·9

  Grampian

  3·0

  4·5

  10·0

  12·3

  Highland

  4·7

  5·7

  15·1

  17·9

  Lothian

  4·6

  5·9

  15·6

  17·9

  Strathclyde

  3·2

  5·4

  14·8

  17·8

  Tayside

  4·9

  7·9

  16·9

  19·5

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  4·5

  6·0

  13·4

  15·7

  Scotland

  3·7

  5·7

  14·4

  17·1

  Great Britain

  2·8

  4·3

  12·1

  14·4

  All Men

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  4·4

  8·0

  23·6

  30·3

  Dumfries/Galloway

  6·6

  7·7

  36·6

  40·4

  Fife

  7·3

  10·1

  30·8

  34·4

  Grampian

  6·1

  9·1

  23·2

  27·2

  Highland

  5·5

  11·4

  33·8

  38·4

  Lothian

  6·5

  9·5

  26·0

  30·6

  Strathclyde

  6·5

  9·5

  26·4

  31·7

  Tayside

  7·8

  12·9

  33·8

  38·8

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  6·1

  11·3

  30·3

  35·2

  Scotland

  6·5

  9·8

  27·1

  32·1

  Great Britain

  4·8

  7·3

  21·9

  26·1

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note"—" denotes sample size too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate.
  269

  Full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence: Percentage with weekly earnings (including overtime) below the following specified amounts

  April 1991

  £130

  £140

  £180

  £190

  Manual Men

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  3·9

  5·8

  20·8

  27·5

  Dumfries/Galloway

  6·9

  7·8

  31·9

  39·7

  Fife

  6·0

  7·6

  25·2

  29·6

  Grampian

  6·0

  8·0

  22·1

  25·5

  Highland

  4·6

  9·2

  34·4

  40·5

  Lothian

  6·5

  9·8

  27·9

  34·2

  Strathclyde

  7·3

  9·6

  24·9

  30·3

  Tayside

  8·1

  11·6

  32·4

  37·7

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  5·7

  9·7

  30·1

  35·8

  Scotland

  6·8

  9·3

  26·0

  31·4

  Great Britain

  4·9

  3·9

  22·0

  26·9

  Non-Manual Men

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  2·8

  3·9

  10·6

  14·5

  Dumfries/Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fife

  4·0

  6·9

  13·1

  14·9

  Grampian

  1·8

  3·2

  8·9

  10·7

  Highland

  4·7

  5·7

  14·2

  16·0

  Lothian

  4·0

  4·8

  13·6

  15·4

  Strathclyde

  2·7

  4·5

  12·0

  14·8

  Tayside

  3·7

  6·0

  13·5

  16·9

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  3·7

  5·2

  12·7

  14·2

  Scotland

  3·1

  4·7

  12·2

  14·7

  Great Britain

  2·4

  3·6

  10·3

  12·3

  All Men

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Central

  3·4

  4·9

  16·1

  21·5

  Dumfries/Galloway

  6·0

  7·1

  26·8

  32·2

  Fife

  5·2

  7·3

  20·2

  23·5

  Grampian

  4·1

  5·8

  15·9

  18·6

  Highland

  4·6

  7·6

  25·3

  29·5

  Lothian

  5·1

  6·9

  19·8

  23·5

  Strathclyde

  5·0

  7·0

  18·5

  22·6

  Tayside

  6·0

  8·9

  23·2

  27·6

  Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland/Islands

  4·8

  7·7

  22·6

  26·5

  Scotland

  4·9

  7·0

  19·2

  23·2

  Great Britain

  3·5

  5·2

  15·7

  19·1

  Source: New Earnings Survey.

  Note: "—" denotes sample size too small or standard error too large for reliable estimate.

  Employment Protection
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the number of contributions he has made under section 123 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978; and if he will state the extent to which in each case any deficit in funds was made good by his Department for each year since 1978.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available in the form requested. Total payments to occupational pension schemes under section 123 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 for each financial year to 1989–90, the latest available date, were as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure

  (£000)

  1978–79

  87

  1979–80

  247

  1980–81

  582

  1981–82

  386

  1982–83

  365

  270

  Year

  Expenditure

  (£ 000)

  1983–84

  287

  1984–85

  646

  1985–86

  289

  1986–87

  514

  1987–88

  929

  1988–89

  628

  1989–90

  525

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the GATT negotiations.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am in regular contact with the president of the NFU to discuss all matters concerning agriculture, including the GATT round.

  Fish Laboratories
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a progress report on the new building programme for the MAFF fish laboratories in Weymouth.

  Mr. Curry
  Planning approval has been granted for the new fish diseases laboratory at Weymouth and consultants have produced the final sketch plan. Demolition of the existing buildings is expected to start in June this year and the new laboratory should be completed by the end of 1993.

  Hill Farming
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the National Farmers Union about hill farming and the hill livestock compensatory allowance.

  Mr. Gummer
  My noble Friend the Minister of State met the National Farmers' Union on 23 October as part of the normal consultation procedures we have held with the NFU. I will report to the House about the operation of the hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme 1992 as soon as the review has been completed.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Potato Marketing Board to encourage more variety in species of potato grown in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Curry
  None. The Potato Marketing Board's latest planting survey showed that 131 varieties were grown commercially in Great Britain last year.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Michael Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990 with reference to the selling of out-of-date food in the retail trade.
  271
  Mr. Maclean
  No Sir. It is already an offence under the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 for anyone to sell food bearing an expired "use by" date.

  It is also an offence under the Food Safety Act 1990 to sell any food which is unfit for human consumption or which is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser, whether or not any date mark has expired.

  Cetaceans
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new initiative he has to protect cetaceans.

  Mr. Gummer
  We remain very concerned to take measures to secure the conservation of cetaceans. Most recently, on 1 January 1992, we introduced a scheme for voluntary reporting by United Kingdom fishermen of all incidental catches of marine mammals, including cetaceans. The EC-wide limitation on drift net length we secured last October will also contribute to conservation of cetaceans.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any further plans to combat the pollution of rivers by the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 21 January that a pilot study would be drawn up to see if pollution could be reduced by the preparation and use by farmers of plans for the disposal of manure, slurry and other organic wastes. This will supplement existing measures to tackle river pollution from agriculture including new legislation setting minimum constructional standards for farm waste storage facilities, 50 per cent grant aid towards the cost of such facilities, an increased maximum fine available to magistrates for water pollution offences, free initial pollution advice by ADAS and a £2 million R and D programme.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his review of the environmentally sensitive area boundaries will be completed.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), earlier today.

  Job Losses
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many jobs have been lost in the farming industry since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of farmers and workers recorded in the June census of agricultural holdings were 740,000 in 1979 and 628,000 in 1991. The difference of 112,000 overestimates the number of jobs lost because of changes in the basis on which the data were collected.

  Beef Producers
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures he is taking to improve returns to specialist beef producers.

  Mr. Curry
  In October, Ministers announced that some £74 million would be made available to specialist beef producers in 1991–92 through the suckler cow premium scheme. The hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme continues to provide assistance to producers of beef cattle in the less favoured areas. Beef producers could also be eligible for assistance under the new group marketing grant scheme which is currently being finalised and will be introduced in April.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in discussions on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs Gorman).

  Agricultural Land (Planning Applications)
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he takes to monitor local authority planning consent with regard to alternative uses for agricultural land.

  Mr. Curry
  This Department does not monitor planning consents. The Department of the Environment collects statistics from local planning authorities but these do not extend to identifying changes of use for agricultural land.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animals were exported live in the past 12 months; what was their estimated value; and if he will make a statement on the conditions under which they were exported.

  Mr. Maclean
  All animals exported from Great Britain for slaughter or further fattening must undergo pre-export rest and veterinary inspection at Government-approved lairages, before being loaded on to vehicles approved for the purpose.

  A total of 1,186,702 animals were inspected and declared fit for transport during 1991.

  Figures showing the value of these exports are not yet available.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the implications of the MacSharry common agricultural policy reform proposals for the sheep industry.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to my hon. friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West on 19 December 1991,Official Report, column 306.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the sheep sector.
  273
  Mr. Gummer
  I will be meeting the president of the National Farmers Union on 18 February to discuss the sheep sector and other matters.

  Mackerel
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the fishing industry about the future of the south-west mackerel box; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  On 28 November 1991 a regulation making the box permanent in the interests of conserving the western mackerel stock was adopted. The industry has frequently made clear to us that the south western mackerel box should be retained although some would like to see stricter controls on some fishing with small mesh nets within the box for species such as pilchards and horse mackerel whilst others seek some relaxation to permit a small quota of mackerel for local trawlers. There is at present no evidence to suggest the problem is sufficiently large to require a complete ban on small mesh nets. A small mackerel quota would need EC agreement even if we thought a case might be made.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received in the last 12 months regarding animal welfare; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department has continued to receive a very large number of representatives on animal welfare. The Government attach great importance to this issue and will continue to press for the high standards in this country to be adopted throughout the European Community.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to make any changes to his Department's cash limits for 1991–92.

  Mr. Gummer
  Yes. The cash limit for class III, vote 4 (other agricultural and food services, support for the fishing industry, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection) will be reduced by £6,745,000 from £273,789,000 to £267,044,000. Within this limit expenditure will be reduced by £2,345,000 on agricultural schemes and by £1,400,000 on sea fishery support. These reductions reflect a predicted decrease in demand under these schemes. Expenditure on emergency and strategic food services will be reduced by £3,000,000 reflecting a reduction in the size of the emergency food stockpile.

  The non-voted cash limit MAFF/LACAP (supplementary credit approvals for flood defence and coast protection) will be decreased by £2,000,000 from £16,594,000 to £14,594,000 reflecting a predicted reduction in local authority expenditure on flood defence capital works.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring he is undertaking of the benefits from set-aside for(a) diverse plant species, (b) butterflies and other invertebrates, (c) short-eared
  274
  owls, hen harriers and other predatory birds and (d) foxes and other wild mammals; and when he expects to complete a proper scientific evaluation of the effect of set-aside on wildlife.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department is currently undertaking work on the environmental impact of set-aside, including a study of the changes in the botanical composition of fallowed set-aside land. Final results are expected in 1994. The study will also provide some information about the likely implications for wildlife and will be supported by a separate study of rabbit numbers on set-aside land.

  We are considering the scope for further research into the benefits to wildlife and a number of other organisations are carrying out relevant work in this area. However the complex range of factors affecting wildlife populations and the need to measure changes over time, mean that a full scientific evaluation cannot be completed in the immediate future.

  Recession
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the effects of the current recession on the agricultural industry.

  Mr. Maclean
  The support arrangements under the common agricultural policy have to a considerable extent insulated the agriculture industry from the direct effects of recession. Farmers have however benefited from the fall in interest rates over the past year and interest payments by the farming industry are expected to have fallen by 14 per cent. in 1991.

  Farming and Fishing Enterprises
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements his Department has to assess the effect of proposals for regulations on small farming and fishing enterprises prior to implementation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food participates fully in the Government's deregulation initiative to ensure that the regulatory burden on the agriculture and fishing industries is kept under constant review and minimised wherever possible.

  This process includes consultation at an early stage with industry, on both United Kingdom and European Community regulatory proposals through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's close working relationships with trade associations and other groups. A cost compliance assessment which evaluates the effect all legislative proposals will have on industry is also prepared prior to implementation.

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the recent agreement of EC fisheries Ministers for the conservation of fish stocks.

  Mr. Curry
  Further to my statement in the House on 20 December we have today issued a consultation paper to the industry seeking views on a range of proposals which could be taken unilaterally to improve conservation of the fish stocks of importance to us. The proposals include
  275
  suggestion for action on a one-net rule, a United Kingdom minimum landing size for whiting, further action on square mesh panels and new measures on net geometry.

  A copy of the consultation document is available in the Library of the House.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any pasteurisation plants have yet been granted approval to process eggs from salmonella infected flocks; and how many plants have applied to him for such approval.

  Mr. Maclean
  No applications have been received for the approval of plants to pasteurise eggs from salmonella infected flocks. Consequently no plants have been approved for this purpose.

  Pollution, Fal Estuary
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether current levels of pollution are within current EC standards in the Fal estuary, Cornwall.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have been asked to reply.

  The relevant EC standards are environmental quality objectives (EQOs) for mercury and cadmium. Compliance with EQOs is demonstrated by reference to annual averages. Although higher than normal concentrations of these substances have recently been recorded in parts of the Fal estuary it is not possible to say whether there has yet been a breach of the EQO.

HEALTH

  Dried Fruit
  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1991,Official Report, column 54, if he will list the scientific references which led the health education authority to conclude that dried fruits contain non-milk extrinsic sugars.

  Mr. Dorrell
  During the process of drying, the cells of fresh fruit lose integrity and undergo structural changes, thus converting their intrinsic sugars to an extrinsic form as defined by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy.

  The scientific principles of these processes are well established and described in basic food technology text books.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his estimate of the total extra costs incurred in enforcing standards in the patients charter expressed separately;

  (2) what extra money he intends to provide specifically for meeting target standards under the patients charter;
  276
  (3) what assessment he has made of the manpower implications of the patients charter for (a) the ambulance services arising from requirements for response times, (b) accident and emergency departments arising from waiting time limits for initial assessment requirements, (c) out-patient departments arising from waiting time requirements, (d) operating theatres arising from cancellations of operations requirements and (e) on staffing arising from the naming of health service personnel as responsible for individual patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The patients charter defines acceptable standards for existing services. Each standard is currently being met, within existing resources, by some health authorities. Enforcement of charter standards will help to generalise this good management practice throughout the National Health Service.

  Medical Professions (Work Load)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been conducted, or are under way, into the administrative work loads of doctors, nurses and clinical staff in the professions associated with medicine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There are no studies either completed or under way that specifically address the question of administrative work loads of doctors, nurses or professions allied to medicine.

  The studies listed on the general work load of general medical practitioners (GMPs) and nurses have helped inform the Department of the administrative functions carried out by these groups.

  1. The "Unnecessary Bureaucracy Working Group" which made recommendations on streamlining the administrative work of GMPs.

  2. A cyclical study, in conjunction with the BMA, on the workload of GMPs. The last study was completed in 1989–90 and the next is scheduled to start in 1993–94.

  3. A recently completed study by York university into nursing care which suggests that a small amount of time spent by nurses on administrative work can be beneficial to the quality of nursing care.

  4. A survey to be commissioned shortly by the Department will address, among other things, the effects of using administrative support in relation to nursing.

  Medical and Nursing Posts
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by staff grade and specialty, the number of full-time equivalent medical and nursing posts available to health service hospitals in 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information for 1991 is not yet available and 1990 data are shown in the tables. Information for 1976, 1981 and 1986 can be found in the publication "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England" copies of which are available in the Library.
  277

  Table 1

  Hospital Medical Staff: Analysis by specialty and grade England—30 September 1990

  Grade

  All staff

  Consultant

  Staff grade

  Associate Specialist

  Senior registrar

  Registrar

  Senior house officer

  House officer

  Other

  House Practitioner

  Clinical assistant

  All medical specialties

  39,760·8

  13,897·3

  239·7

  717·1

  3,143·9

  5,934·8

  10,692·5

  3,016·0

  10·8

  186·9

  1,921·6

  General Medicine1

  4,643·4

  1,155·7

  3·5

  14·0

  239·2

  628·7

  1,145·7

  1,283·3

  0·8

  20·8

  151·7

  Cardiology

  437·4

  132·8

  0·0

  2·4

  42·8

  114·7

  103·7

  23·0

  1·0

  2·2

  14·8

  Diabetes and Endocrinology2

  85·9

  17·2

  0·9

  1·1

  14·2

  21·5

  14·0

  5·0

  0·0

  1·6

  10·4

  Gastroenterology

  138·5

  33·6

  1·0

  0·0

  11·3

  44· 1

  18·1

  21·0

  0·0

  1·5

  7·9

  Nephrology

  218·8

  59·3

  3·5

  4·8

  15·0

  45·9

  72·9

  10·0

  0·0

  0·8

  6·6

  Palliative Medicine3

  25·9

  13·1

  0·0

  0·0

  1·5

  0·5

  7·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·7

  3·1

  Thoracic Medicine4

  283·8

  83·7

  0·0

  13·1

  26·6

  47·3

  81·7

  13·0

  0·0

  2·7

  15·7

  Geriatric Medicine

  1,897·0

  483·9

  18·5

  42·4

  81·6

  183·3

  776·8

  103·2

  1·0

  33·4

  172·9

  Audiological Medicine

  15·2

  10·9

  0·0

  0·0

  4·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·3

  Clinical Genetics5

  47·4

  29·3

  0·0

  1·5

  7·2

  6·1

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  2·8

  Clinical Neuro. Phys.

  61·8

  49·8

  0·0

  1·0

  7·0

  0·0

  3·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  Clinical Pharm. and Thera.

  59·6

  24·9

  0·0

  0·0

  9·6

  16·1

  3·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  5·0

  Clinical Physiology

  15·7

  11·9

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  2·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  0·2

  Clinical Immun. and Aller.6

  2·7

  1·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Rehabilitation7

  17·6

  8·8

  0·0

  0·0

  3·6

  1·0

  3·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·2

  Dermatology

  431·8

  223·1

  0·4

  7·5

  49·1

  39· 4

  40·2

  4·0

  0·5

  9·3

  58·3

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  335·9

  157·9

  3·9

  8·1

  37· 9

  42·3

  27·6

  0·7

  0·8

  5·7

  51·0

  Medical Oncology

  69·5

  23·2

  0·0

  0·0

  9·9

  13·1

  15·8

  3·0

  0·0

  0·3

  4·2

  Infectious Diseases

  76·4

  26·8

  0·0

  1·0

  7·5

  10·6

  28·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·5

  Neurology

  376·0

  167·1

  0·0

  1·3

  36·9

  57·1

  89·3

  13·0

  0·0

  1·2

  10·1

  Occupational Health8

  62·9

  27·2

  1·0

  0·0

  5·6

  2·7

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·2

  24·2

  Rheumatology1

  470·5

  221·9

  3·9

  10·6

  48·5

  36·2

  94·9

  17·0

  0·0

  5·6

  31·9

  Other

  189·1

  28·1

  2·6

  2·1

  10·2

  34·4

  40·2

  6·0

  0·0

  4·7

  60·8

  Paediatrics

  2,316·3

  684·8

  4·0

  6·5

  134·5

  329·8

  1,112·9

  6·0

  0·0

  3·8

  34·0

  Paediatric Neurology9

  22·8

  9·5

  0·0

  1·7

  2·0

  1·0

  8·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·6

  Accident and Emergency

  1,886·4

  196·4

  41·6

  62·1

  54·6

  78·2

  1,262·2

  6·0

  0·0

  5·9

  179·4

  General Surgery

  3,522·8

  879·3

  9·0

  13·2

  162·8

  570·7

  646·1

  1,192·5

  0·0

  9·7

  39·5

  Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

  352·5

  116·0

  0·0

  4·0

  30·0

  95·6

  96·0

  9·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·9

  Otolaryngology10

  943·3

  352·8

  5·9

  24·6

  63·4

  138·9

  282·1

  35·0

  0·0

  7·4

  33·2

  Neurosurgery

  246·1

  86·8

  0·0

  0·0

  24·4

  53·3

  73·0

  8·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·6

  Ophthalmology

  1,155·7

  407·5

  14·7

  52·3

  78·8

  122·0

  338·9

  1·0

  3·4

  6·4

  130·7

  Paediatric Surgery

  127·6

  35·6

  0·0

  0·0

  16·2

  22·5

  49·0

  4·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·3

  Plastic Surgery

  258·8

  93·4

  2·8

  1·0

  22·0

  49·2

  84·0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·1

  4·3

  Traumatic & Ortho. Surgery

  2,199·2

  696·8

  17·8

  59·5

  145·0

  386·9

  685·5

  149·3

  0·0

  7·7

  50·7

  Urology

  500·2

  205·7

  0·0

  2·8

  48·2

  82·1

  90·8

  63·0

  0·0

  1·1

  6·5

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  2,814·9

  736·4

  11·0

  38·1

  135·5

  510·3

  1,251·2

  5·0

  0·2

  10·6

  116·6

  Anaesthetics

  4,497·4

  1,986·3

  31·9

  125·2

  378·2

  821·7

  971·7

  2·0

  1·5

  16·5

  162·4

  Radiology

  1,552·4

  1,054·5

  1·3

  4·5

  250·1

  225·2

  4·5

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  11·3

  Nuclear Medicine

  38·1

  21·9

  0·0

  1·5

  6·0

  4·5

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  2·1

  Radiotherapy

  451·4

  181·8

  2·8

  6·0

  59·5

  76·5

  98·2

  15·0

  0·0

  0·8

  10·8

  General Pathology

  49·5

  0·0

  0·0

  2·5

  0·0

  12·0

  31·7

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  2·8

  Blood Transfusion

  97·0

  32·3

  2·9

  20·7

  3·5

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  36·6

  Chemical Pathology

  263·1

  157·6

  1·0

  2·3

  55 ·3

  32·4

  13·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  1·4

  Haematology

  632·4

  334·2

  6·9

  7·5

  101·5

  83·6

  63·5

  13·0

  0·0

  1·3

  20·9

  Histopathology

  839·6

  541·7

  0·0

  6·7

  135·3

  107·2

  40·2

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  7·5

  Immuno-Pathology

  44·8

  25·2

  0·0

  0·0

  10·2

  5·0

  3·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·4

  Medical Microbiology

  388·8

  239·3

  0·0

  2·1

  72·6

  54·6

  17·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  3·2

  Virology11

  13·1

  4·3

  0·0

  0·0

  5·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  2·8

  Neuropathology

  38·1

  25·5

  0·0

  0·0

  9·9

  1·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·2

  0·5

  Clinical Cytogenetics12

  4·8

  3·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·8

  Mental Illness

  3,359·8

  1,095·5

  39·2

  124·7

  292·8

  642·2

  861·1

  22·0

  0·0

  11·1

  291·2

  Child and Adol. Psychiatry

  478·1

  326·5

  0·0

  3·2

  91·9

  24·6

  13·1

  0·0

  0·6

  1·3

  16·9

  Forensic Psychiatry

  103·8

  68·4

  1·0

  5·0

  16·3

  11·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·1

  Mental Handicap

  373·7

  159·4

  4·0

  21·7

  42·8

  30·7

  10·0

  0·0

  0·0

  7·1

  98·0

  Old Age Psychiatry13

  103·3

  79·4

  2·9

  4·0

  2·0

  4·0

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  8·5

  Psychotherapy

  122·5

  67·7

  0·0

  2·7

  24·1

  8·0

  13·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·5

  6·5

  Notes:

  1 In 1982 specialty of Rheumatology replaced Rheumatology and rehabilitation: Rehabilitation became a sub-specialty of General medicine.

  2 In 1987 specialty of Endocrinology renamed Diabetes and endocrinology.
  278 279
  3 New specialty introduced in 1989.

  4 In 1984 specialty of Diseases of chest renamed Thoracic medicine.

  5 New specialty introduced in 1979. Prior to 1979 staff in this specialty would usually have been included under "other".

  6 New specialty introduced in 1990.

  7 New specialty introduced in 1990.

  8 New specialty introduced in 1983. Prior to 1983 staff in this specialty would usually have been included under "other".

  9 New specialty introduced in 1980. Prior to 1980 staff in this specialty were included under Paediatrics.

  10 In 1985 specialty of Ear nose and throat renamed Otolaryngology.

  11 New specialty introduced in 1989.

  12 New specialty introduced in 1989.

  13 New specialty introduced in 1989.

  Hospital based Nursing and Midwifery1 staff in post at 30 September 1990 England

  Whole-time equivalent2

  Hospital Nursing Staff

  328,060

  Qualified

  188,770

  Senior Nurses 1-5

  570

  Senior Nurses 6-83

  —

  Tutorial Nurses

  5,240

  Other Registered

  131,410

  Enrolled Nurses

  51,550

  Learners:

  Post-Registered Student Nurses

  1,640

  Post-Enrolled Student Nurses

  1,850

  Pre-Registered Student Nurses

  46,550

  Pupil Nurses

  2,470

  Unqualified

  86,790

  Hospital Midwifery Staff

  19,490

  Qualified

  15,660

  Senior Nurses 1-5

  40

  Senior Nurses 6-83

  —

  Tutorial Midwifery Staff

  660

  Other State Certified Midwives

  14,960

  Learners: Student Midwifery

  3,820

  Source: Department of Health (SM13) annual census of National Health Service non-medical manpower.

  1 Excludes agency staff.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest ten (10) whole-time equivalents.

  3 It is no longer appropriate to separate registered nurses between senior nurse 6 to 8 and other registered nurses.

  31 December 1981

  31 December 1982

  31 December 1983

  31 December 1984

  31 December 1985

  31 December 1986

  31 March 1988

  31 March 1989

  31 March 1990

  31 March 1991

  Northern

  3,022

  2,938

  2,859

  2,681

  2,568

  2,478

  n/a

  n/a

  2,077

  1,957

  Yorkshire Trent

  2,966

  2,887

  2,773

  2,609

  2,567

  2,355

  n/a

  n/a

  1,980

  1,313

  Trent

  4,028

  3,882

  3,777

  3,419

  3,122

  2,820

  n/a

  n/a

  2,347

  1,760

  East Anglian

  1,470

  1,458

  1,375

  1,267

  1,184

  1,075

  n/a

  n/a

  893

  906

  North West Thames

  3,413

  3,297

  3,205

  3,085

  2,934

  2,808

  n/a

  n/a

  2,496

  2,467

  North East Thames

  2,447

  2,377

  2,318

  2,119

  1,909

  1,786

  n/a

  n/a

  1,274

  1,274

  South East Thames

  2,877

  2,743

  2,596

  2,418

  2,123

  1,843

  n/a

  n/a

  840

  1,077

  South West Thames

  5,402

  5,229

  5,030

  4,783

  4,493

  4,069

  n/a

  n/a

  2,948

  2,704

  Wessex

  2,092

  2,037

  1,932

  1,434

  1,432

  1,318

  n/a

  n/a

  1,214

  1,116

  Oxford

  1,677

  1,636

  1,582

  1,483

  1,383

  1,266

  n/a

  n/a

  853

  843

  South Western

  4,164

  4,049

  3,896

  3,184

  2821

  2,523

  n/a

  n/a

  2,314

  1,495

  West Midlands

  3,839

  3,726

  3,632

  3,342

  3,179

  2,980

  n/a

  n/a

  2,555

  2,555

  Mersey

  2,156

  2,062

  1,952

  1,828

  1,729

  1,566

  n/a

  n/a

  1,115

  921

  North Western

  3,538

  3,391

  3,256

  3,022

  2,813

  2,576

  n/a

  n/a

  2,003

  1,729

  ENGLAND

  43,091

  41,712

  40,183

  36,674

  34,259

  31,461

  n/a

  27,700

  24,909

  22,117

  Source:

  SKI2C

  KHE for 1981–1986

  HES for 1987–88 onwards

  n/a = not readily available

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements for transfer of dowry funds with resettled mental handicap patients to local authorities have been made in each regional health authority; under what terms these payments are made; and if he will list by regional health authority the sums transferred each year on this basis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Payments of dowries are made under section 28A of the National Health Service Act 1977. Guidance on such payments was given to regional health authorities in HC(83)6, HC(84)9 and HC(86)11, copies of which are available in the Library. Information on dowry payments in respect of patients resettled from mental handicap hospitals is not available in the form requested. Total health authority dowry payments to local authorities for people with learning disabilities were £6.647 million in 1988–89 and £12.283 million in 1989–90.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number, for each regional health authority, of in-patient residents in health service facilities for patients with a mental handicap for each year since 1981; and what proportion of the reduction in numbers is due to discharge and what proportion due to death, for each regional health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table shows the number of patients with learning disabilities resident in national health service hospitals and units by regional health authority. It is not possible to calculate the proportions of the reduction due to discharge and deaths as the data on admissions and discharges collected centrally do not relate to individual patients.

  Triazolam
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of adverse drug reaction reports, through the yellow card system for each year from 1978 to 1991 for Triazolam; and how many of these were categorised as serious.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  There have been 402 reports, of which 173 were categorised as serious. The number of reports by year is as follows:

  Year of report

  Total reports

  Serious reports

  1978

  0

  0

  1979

  50

  20

  1980

  51

  24

  1981

  48

  12

  1982

  87

  42

  1983

  41

  20

  1984

  20

  11

  1985

  19

  4

  1986

  17

  3

  1987

  21

  13

  1988

  13

  7

  1989

  7

  3

  1990

  6

  0

  1991

  22

  14

  Computerised Equipment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many computerised tomography scanners and magnetic resonance machines are at present available to the national health service that were bought from(a) national health service funds and (b) charitable appeals.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are 250 computerised tomography scanners and 30 magnetic resonance machines in use on national health service sites in the United Kingdom. Available information suggests that private donations or appeals helped towards the funding of purchase in approximately half these cases.

  Dementia and Arthritis
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why it was decided not to include dementia and arthritis as key areas for action in his "Health of the Nation" report; and whether he proposes to ask public health directors to report on the demand for services for dementia and arthritis sufferers in their assessments of health needs.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Dementia and arthritis were not discussed and proposed in "The Health of the Nation" as areas in which health targets might be set because despite their importance they did not meet the proposed criteria for selection set out in the Green Paper. Directors of public health are already required to assess the health needs of the local population to inform their local health authority's decisions about the provision of services, including those for people suffering from dementia and arthritis. Progress in meeting needs is included in public health directors' reports to their regional health authorities and to the Department.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1991–92.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XIII, vote 6 (Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) will be increased by £263,000 from £95,807,000 to £96,070,000. This reflects an increase in running costs provision of £263,000 in respect of the end year flexibility arrangements for running costs expenditure (the increase of public expenditure will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planning total). Increases of £250,000 in the National Health Service central register area to reduce the backlog of transactions arising from computerisation of the national health service central register earlier this year: and £66,000 for additional and continuing work on medical statistics, and an increase in capital provision of £20,000 for work on morbidity will be matched by an increase in appropriations in aid on the OPCS vote. These latter amounts will be met from within the existing resources of the Department of Health (class XIII, vote 3).

  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he proposes to make to the cash limits and running cost limit of his Department in 1991–92.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made.

  The cash limits for class XIII vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England) will be decreased by £21,861,000 (from £16,520,699,000 to £16,498,838,000). This decrease allows for transfers to class XIII, vote 4 of £12,480,000 reflecting an increase in the NHS trusts' aggregate external financing limit and £8,214,000 following reapportionment of drug budgets; to class XIII. vote 3 of £2,000,000 for publicity in respect of deaths in infancy; £96,000 for the inquiry into still births and £24,000 for computer audit equipment; and to class XVI, vote 8 of £38,000 for the Cardiff school of occupational therapy. These reductions are partly offset by transfers from class XIII, vote 3 of £640,000 for valuation office services, £152,000 for inspection by the Medicines Control Agency; £128,000 for training purposes and £71,000 for the national external quality assessment scheme.

  The cash limit for class XIII, vote 3 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England) will be decreased by £1,716.000 (from £733,429,000 to £731,713,000). This reduction allows for transfers to class XIV, vote 4 of £819,000 for accommodation of the artificial eye service; to class XIII, vote 1 totalling £991,000 as mentioned above; to class XVIII, vote 1 of £65,000 for Chessington computer centre and to class XVI, vote 7 of £11,000 for inspections by the Medicines Control Agency. Savings totalling £2,000,000 are also made from departmental administration capital. These decreases are partly offset by transfers from class XIII, vote 1 of £2,120,000 as mentioned above; and from class XIV, vote 4 of £50,000 for the Departmental Records Office.
  283
  The provision for running costs on class XIII, vote 3 and the Department's running cost limit is decreased by £15,000 from £252,921,000 to £252,906,000.

  North West Thames Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that there has been proper management of the finance and payroll computer systems in the North West Thames regional health authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  All national health service finance and payroll systems are subject to statutory external audit.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend the list of illnesses qualifying for free prescriptions to include (a) cancer sufferers taking Tamoxifen and (b) other illnesses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Exemption from prescription charges on medical grounds is linked to specified medical conditions, rather than to particular treatments. There are no plans to change this policy or to extend the list of medical conditions which currently attract free prescriptions.

  Existing, wide-ranging exemption arrangements, underpinned by the separate scheme for remission on grounds of low income and the prescription prepayment certificate scheme, ensure that no one need forego any necessary medication on financial grounds. Less than one item in five dispensed in the national health service currently attracts a charge.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will issue a clear exposition on the levels of service which can be expected by recipients of personal social services;

  (2) what is his policy with regard to the principle of equity of access to personal social services;

  (3) what steps he takes to measure outcomes in the provision of personal social services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for local authorities to determine the appropriate level of services based on their judgment of local needs and priorities and on available resources, and to monitor implementation. Their published community care plans should make clear the level of services they expect to provide.

  The Department is committed to funding longer term research to evaluate the new community care arrangements, including the assessment of outcomes for users and carers.

  The standard spending assessment for personal social services represents the Government's view of the appropriate level of spending required to achieve a standard level of service, and thus ensures that the Government's contribution to local government is targeted on areas with greatest need.

  Community Nurses
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on charging for community health nurse services.
  284
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  National health service community health services are provided free of charge.

  Cook-Chill Catering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation has been undertaken into the value for money of expenditure by district health authorities on cook-chill catering units.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to assess and evaluate proposals for the introduction of cook-chill catering locally. They are also expected to evaluate a unit's performance against agreed standards as an integral part of the process of assessing value for money within the national health service.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is monitoring the local implementation of the Children Act 1989 and National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 against local authorities' own definitions of need or a national notional norm; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has been discussing with the local authority associations and voluntary child care organisations how best to monitor implementation of the Children Act in respect of services to children in need as defined by section 17(10) of the Children Act. This will form part of the Department's strategy for monitoring implementation of the Children Act overall. The implementation of "Caring for People" is being monitored by regional health authorities and the regional social services inspectorate on the basis of the progress review issues document issued in June 1991.

  National Health Service Trusts (Purchasing)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what directions have been given to trusts with regard to central purchasing arrangements;

  (2) what proposals he has to restructure central purchasing arrangements within the national health service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Health Service Supplies Authority was established as a special health authority on 1 October 1991 to provide a comprehensive national supplies service for all national health service units throughout England. Over the next few months it will take over the supplies services currently provided by regional and district health authorities and will operate through a central headquarters and six operating divisions. All national health service units including trusts, will be encouraged to negotiate a service contract with the appropriate division of the authority for the range of supplies services each will require, in expectation of securing best value for money. Trusts will be free to manage their own supplies service but would be expected to demonstrate continuing value for money if they choose to do so.

  Elderly People (Nursing Care)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of the national health service in providing long-term nursing care of the elderly, and on the circumstances under which private
  285
  nursing care or private, voluntary or local authority residential care should be used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The role of the national health service in providing long-term nursing care is clearly set out in the White Paper "Caring for People" (Cm. 849) at paragraphs 4.19-4.22. Health authorities may make use of private nursing homes or nursing services as they see fit in the light of local circumstances and priorities and available resources. Similarly, it is for local authorities to decide whether to provide accommodation in their own homes or to arrange residential care in the independent sector for those who are in need of residential care.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service patients over retirement age have been discharged directly into(a) private nursing homes, (b) voluntary nursing homes, (c) private care homes, (d) voluntary care homes and (e) local authority part III accommodation for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This information is not available centrally.

  Health and Social Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that there is consistency between the statistical information available nationally for planning both health care and social care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A wide range of information supports the Department's planning, including demographic and census statistics as well as data relating to the NHS and local authority social services. The need for consistency is well established as a key consideration in the design of national collection systems. Mechanisms exist to formulate consistent central information requirements in both health and social services.

  Home Helps
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the prevalence of local authorities redefining their criteria for access to home help/home care services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally. We understand that some local authorities have revised their criteria.

  Care Budget
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account will be taken of geographical variations when the care element of the social security budget for private and voluntary residential nursing care is transferred to local authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Decisions about the distribution of the transfer from the Department of Social Security to individual local authorities will be taken later this year following discussions with the local authority associations.

  Westwood Hospital
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has about the plans to build a 50-bed bungalow-type hospital in the grounds of Westwood hospital.
  286
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1992]: There are no such plans. I understand that Bradford health authority is consulting Bradford community health council about its plans for the development of local services for people with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis he has received of local opinion on the proposal to close Westwood hospital in Bradford; if he will summarise the opinion; and if he will place copies of the analysis in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1992]: We have received no analysis of local opinion regarding the closure of Westwood hospital.

  Bradford health authority is currently consulting Bradford community health council about its plans for developing services for people with learning disabilities.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Bradford Health announced its proposal to close Westwood hospital in Bradford; over what period the local community was consulted about the proposal; what consideration he has given to the proposal; and when he intends to announce whether he approves the closure proposal.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1992] : Bradford health authority conducted a full public consultation between August and November 1990 on their proposals for the development of services for people with learning disabilities including the future role of Westwood hospital. These proposals have not been referred to Ministers.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will undertake to visit Westwood hospital, Bradford, to meet the local community before reaching a decision on the future of the hospital.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1992] : No such proposal has been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a decision.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what public consultation has been conducted in Bradford over the proposal to close Westwood hospital; and what representations he has received about the consultation process.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1992] : Bradford health conducted a full public consultation between August and November 1990 on its proposals for the development of services for people with learning disabilities including the future role of Westwood hospital. They are now consulting Bradford community health council for the next phase of these plans. We have received a number of representations about Westwood hospital from the hon. Members for Bradford, West and for Bradford, South (Mr Cryer) and a number of local residents.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will describe the normal procedure applied to any proposal to close a hospital; and the circumstances in which he is required to approve a proposal to close a hospital; and whether this normal procedure has been applied to the proposal by Bradford Health to close Westwood hospital.
  287
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 28 January 1992] : The procedure for the closure of hospitals is contained in the Community Health Councils Regulations 1985 (as amended). The regulations provide for formal local consultation, including the appropriate community health council, (CHC) for any significant change in hospital and community health services. If local agreement cannot be achieved, the proposals must be referred to the regional health authority who may reject them or forward them for consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In the case of services for people with learning disabilities, Bradford health authority has confirmed that it will consult with the CHC and other interested parties on its proposals including final closure and disposal of the hospital.

SCOTLAND

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by staff grade and specialty, the number of full-time equivalent medical and nursing posts available to health service hospitals in 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991.

  Table 1

  Hospital medical and dental staff: by grade1 and speciality at 30 September 1991 (provisional)

  Whole time equivalent

  Speciality

  Total WTE

  Cons

  ASSP

  Staff grade

  Senior REG

  REG

  SHO

  House OFF

  All specialties

  5,705·1

  2,159·6

  151·4

  30·8

  381·8

  977·5

  1,395·0

  611·0

  Surgical specialties

  1,362·9

  448·5

  40·1

  2·6

  67·8

  262·8

  256·1

  285·0

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  42·1

  16·1

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  8·0

  14·0

  3·0

  ENT surgery

  124·9

  49·3

  6·0

  2·0

  7·0

  30·6

  29·0

  1·0

  General surgery

  603·5

  149·0

  9·5

  0·0

  20·8

  99·6

  92·1

  235·5

  Neurosurgery

  34·4

  13·2

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  7·2

  8·0

  4·0

  Opthalmology

  144·6

  65·6

  10·8

  0·6

  10·0

  30·6

  27·0

  0·0

  Orthopaedics

  281·5

  102·1

  12·8

  0·0

  17·0

  63·6

  61·0

  25·0

  Plastic surgery

  39·5

  12·0

  0·0

  0·0

  3·0

  11·0

  9·0

  4·5

  Surgical Paediatrics

  32·9

  8·9

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  5·0

  9·0

  8·0

  Urology

  59·5

  32·3

  1·0

  0·0

  5·0

  11·2

  6·0

  4·0

  Accident and emergency

  205·3

  21·0

  3·0

  2·7

  6·6

  8·0

  164·0

  0·0

  Anaesethics

  581·3

  295·9

  17·5

  3·0

  43·7

  97·0

  124·2

  0·0

  Medical specialties

  1,723·1

  547·7

  21·0

  6·2

  97·8

  266·8

  489·6

  294·0

  Communicable diseases

  47·9

  17·0

  1·3

  1·6

  2·0

  5·0

  16·0

  5·0

  Dermatology

  76·4

  33·1

  3·5

  0·6

  8·4

  13·8

  17·0

  0·0

  Cardiology

  45·3

  18·9

  0·0

  0·0

  0·6

  17·8

  8·0

  0·0

  Clinical pharmacy and therapeutics

  13·9

  8·3

  0·0

  0·0

  1·8

  1·8

  2·0

  0·0

  Endocrin and diabetes

  8·7

  5·0

  0·8

  0·0

  0·4

  1·5

  0·0

  1·0

  Gastro-enterology

  19·3

  4·6

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  8·7

  2·0

  2·0

  General medicine

  740·7

  176·6

  1·5

  0·0

  34·2

  88·6

  173·8

  266·0

  Homeopathy

  4·0

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  0·0

  Medical oncology

  18·1

  10·1

  0·0

  0·0

  2·6

  3·4

  2·0

  0·0

  Nephrology

  28·2

  10·6

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  9·0

  7·6

  0·0

  Rheumatology

  26·1

  10·9

  0·0

  0·0

  1·5

  7·7

  3·0

  3·0

  Genito-urinary medicine

  23·0

  12·0

  2·0

  0·0

  5·0

  3·0

  1·0

  0·0

  Geriatric medicine

  221·3

  80·8

  7·7

  1·0

  13·2

  20·0

  95·6

  3·0

  Medical paediatrics

  265·0

  73·4

  2·0

  0·0

  13·5

  53·5

  122·6

  0·0

  Neurology

  34·5

  18·5

  0·0

  0·0

  3·0

  9·0

  4·0

  0·0

  Palliative medicine

  6·0

  1·3

  0·7

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  3·0

  0·0

  Radiotherapy

  55·5

  28·5

  0·0

  0·0

  3·0

  9·0

  15·0

  0·0

  Rehabilitation medicine

  16·1

  6·6

  1·5

  1·0

  2·0

  2·0

  3·0

  0·0

  Respiratory medicine

  73·1

  29·5

  0·0

  1·0

  3·6

  13·0

  12·0

  14·0

  Dental specialties

  184·3

  65·1

  16·3

  2·0

  14·4

  36·5

  18·0

  32·0

  Oral surgery

  71·4

  19·6

  10·2

  0·0

  5·2

  14·4

  15·0

  7·0

  Oral medicine

  9·9

  4·5

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  4·4

  0·0

  1·0

  Orthodontics

  38·2

  29·7

  1·0

  2·0

  3·0

  5·0

  0·0

  4·5

  Paediatric dentistry

  11·1

  2·9

  1·5

  0·0

  0·6

  1·6

  1·0

  3·5

  Restorative dentistry

  53·7

  15·4

  3·6

  0·0

  5·6

  11·1

  2·0

  16·0

  288
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested. Data on the number (whole time equivalent) of hospital doctors and nurses in post in 1976, 1981 and 1986 are, however, contained in the appropriate editions of "Scottish Health Statistics"', copies of which are available in the Library.

  Provisional figures for September 1991 are shown in the tables.

  1 Scottish health statistics:

  1976: tables 9.5 and 9.10-9.14

  1981: tables 9.10 and 9.12

  1986: tables 9.8 and 9.12

  Notes:

  1. Consultants and associate specialists holding maximum part-time contracts are counted as 1.0 WTE (except in 1976 tables).

  2. The standard working week for nurses changed from 40 to 37·5 hours in 1980.

  289

  Speciality

  Total WTE

  Cons

  ASSP

  Staff grade

  Senior REG

  REG

  SHO

  House OFF

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  413·8

  123·7

  6·1

  2·0

  22·1

  87·9

  172·0

  0·0

  Psychiatric specialties

  608·2

  268·3

  24·5

  8·5

  50·3

  108·1

  148·5

  0·0

  Child and Ad psychiatry

  48·6

  36·4

  0·5

  0·0

  8·2

  3·5

  0·0

  0·0

  Forensic psychiatry

  10·9

  9·9

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Mental handicap

  23·6

  13·0

  5·6

  1·0

  3·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  General psychiatry

  504·3

  194·8

  17·4

  7·5

  36·5

  103·6

  144·5

  0·0

  Psychotherapy

  12·0

  8·4

  0·0

  0·0

  1·6

  1·0

  1·0

  0·0

  Old age psychiatry

  8·8

  5·8

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  2·0

  0·0

  Laboratory and support specialties

  617·4

  380·6

  22·9

  3·8

  78·1

  110·4

  21·6

  0·0

  Blood transfusion

  27·0

  12·2

  7·0

  1·8

  1·0

  5·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Clinical chemistry

  43·3

  25·5

  1·8

  0·0

  9·0

  5·0

  2·0

  0·0

  Clinical genetics

  12·8

  4·2

  1·0

  0·0

  3·2

  4·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Haematology

  85·8

  43·8

  5·0

  0·0

  7·1

  20·3

  9·6

  0·0

  Immunology

  3·2

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  1·6

  0·6

  1·0

  0·0

  Microbiology

  66·9

  45·2

  0·5

  2·0

  8·6

  9·6

  1·0

  0·0

  Nuclear medicine

  2·0

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Pathology

  151·1

  95·3

  7·3

  0·0

  20·4

  20·1

  8·0

  0·0

  Diagnostic radiology

  214·6

  147·9

  0·3

  0·0

  22·0

  44·4

  0·0

  0·0

  Virology

  10·7

  4·5

  0·0

  0·0

  5·2

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Occupational health

  10·8

  8·8

  0·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  1·0

  0·0

  1 Includes honorary appointments.

  Excludes the grades SHMO, SMDO, Limited Specialist, Hosp Practitioner and Para 94/107 appointments.

  Table 2: Hospital nursing staff: by qualification status, grade and field of employment: at 30 September 1991 (provisional)

  Whole-time equivalent

  Total

  Administration

  Acute

  Midwifery

  Mental illness

  Mental handicap

  Care of elderly

  Paediatric

  All hospital nursing staff

  56,196·7

  10·0

  25,341·3

  4,191·6

  11,744·8

  3,863·9

  9,425·4

  1,619·7

  Qualified

  29,879·6

  10·0

  13,531·4

  2,670·6

  6,200·4

  1,629·7

  4,846·6

  990·9

  Management

  132·8

  10·0

  106·8

  1·0

  11·0

  4·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Director of nursing services

  5·0

  0·0

  1·0

  1·0

  2·0

  1·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Senior nurse manager—level 1

  23·0

  0·0

  23·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Senior nurse manager—other

  77·8

  0·0

  77·8

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Protected grades

  25·0

  10·0

  5·0

  0·0

  7·0

  3·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Other

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Clinical grades

  29,746·8

  0·0

  13,424·6

  2,669·6

  6,189·4

  1,625·7

  4,846·6

  990·9

  Scale I

  401·4

  0·0

  174·5

  44·0

  88·9

  29·0

  51·0

  14·0

  Scale H

  507·7

  0·0

  258·3

  59·9

  84·7

  26·0

  58·9

  19·9

  Scale G

  4,058·3

  0·0

  1,786·5

  557·0

  785·2

  223·4

  596·0

  110·2

  Scale F

  2,649·5

  0·0

  906·9

  736·2

  453·3

  132·3

  322·3

  98·5

  Scale E

  11,047·8

  0·0

  5,289·6

  1,168·5

  2,138·1

  506·3

  1,433·5

  511·8

  Scale D

  8,360·7

  0·0

  3,658·7

  49·7

  2,203·2

  644·1

  1,625·9

  179·1

  Scale C

  2,719·4

  0·0

  1,350·1

  54·3

  434·0

  64·6

  759·0

  57·4

  Other

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  In training

  9,899·7

  0·0

  7,101·7

  656·0

  1,514·3

  390·7

  0·0

  237·0

  Student midwife

  656·0

  0·0

  0·0

  656·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Student nurse

  9,007·7

  0·0

  6,867·7

  0·0

  1,512·3

  390·7

  0·0

  237·0

  Pupil nurse

  236·0

  0·0

  234·0

  0·0

  2·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  Unqualified

  16,417·4

  0·0

  4,708·2

  865·0

  4,030·1

  1,843·5

  4,578·8

  391·8

  Auxiliary nurse C

  9·0

  0·0

  0·0

  2·6

  4·0

  0·0

  2·4

  0·0

  Auxiliary nurse B

  921·6

  0·0

  96·8

  7·1

  293·0

  428·7

  71·6

  24·4

  Auxiliary nurse A

  15,252·6

  0·0

  4,611·4

  741·8

  3,733·1

  1,403·4

  4,504·8

  258·1

  Nursery nurse

  234·2

  0·0

  0·0

  113·5

  0·0

  11·4

  0·0

  109·3

  Mental Handicap
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sales of capital assets have arisen from closures of mental handicap hospitals; and if he will list the assets disposed of and the money raised by each sale.
  290
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested, for the period since the 1974 reorganisation of the health service, is given in the table:
  291

  Health board

  Hospital

  Assets disposed of

  Date of disposal

  Proceeds from disposals (£)

  Argyll and Clyde

  Caldwell Hospital, Uplawmoor

  Hospital property

  1989

  180,000·00

  Broadfield Hospital, Port Glasgow

  Hospital property

  1988

  459,845·00

  Fife

  Glenlomond Hospital, by Kinross

  Glenlomond Hospital Farm

  1985

  83,442·12

  House at Glenlomond Farm

  1986

  9,400·00

  Glenlomond Hospital property

  1988

  325,555·00

  Tayside

  Murthly Hospital

  Hospital property

  1988

  359,695·60

  Strathmartine Craigmill House

  Craigmill House property

  1990

  66,551·09

  Individual health boards are able to retain proceeds from the disposals they achieve — currently at the rate of 80 per cent. with the balance being allocated by the management executive to benefit the NHS capital programme.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the revenue expenditure of each health board on health service facilities for patients with a mental handicap for each year since 1981, in cash terms and at 1991 prices.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies have been conducted, or are under way, into the administrative workloads of doctors, nurses and clinical staff in the professions associated with medicine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No studies which address the administrative workloads of these staff groups have been undertaken or are planned in Scotland.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail his reasons for not allowing those local authorities which have incurred losses as a result of the BCCI affair to treat the sums involved as capital projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The accounting treatment of its BCCI loss is a matter for each local authority concerned to agree with its auditors.

  Farming Policy
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish TUC to discuss farming policy.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the Scottish TUC.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to make any changes to the cash limits for 1991–92 within his responsibility.

  Mr. Lang
  Yes, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary estimates, I intend to make changes to nine cash limits:(a) The cash limit for class XV, vote 2: agricultural services and fisheries, Scotland, will be increased by £963,000
  292
  from £98,288,000 to £99,251,000. The increase in provision is required to meet an unexpected shortfall in appropriations in aid from disposals of property, higher than estimated commitments at the Scottish Agricultural college, increased provision for pensions and higher than anticipated demand under a number of grant schemes. These extra requirements are partly offset by savings elsewhere in the vote due to reduced demand under other grant schemes. The increase will be offset by taking up £543,000 end-year flexibility on capital spending and the balance of £420,000 forms part of the £578,000 reduction in the cash limit of class XV, vote 20, Scottish Office administration from £140,408,000 to £139,830,000.
  (b) The cash limit for class XV, vote 7, housing. Scotland, will be increased by £ 7,690,000 from £499,608,000 to £507,298,000. Of this increase £7,545,000, to Scottish Homes' grant in aid, will assist housing associations in the acquisition of local authority and new town development corporation housing stock. The remainder will meet the costs of further publicity on the rent-to-mortgage scheme and the provision of advice on housing matters.
  (c) The cash limit on class XV, vote 13, law, order and miscellaneous health services, Scotland, will be increased by £4,455,000 from £213,464,000 to £ 217,919,000. This increase will be offset by a reduction in the SO/LA1 cash block. The increased provision is required to cover additional costs in the administration of legal aid by the Scottish Legal Aid Board and to meet the costs of the investigations into war crimes and the Lockerbie air disaster. The remaining additional provision will cover the costs arising from the Orkney judicial inquiry, for social work offender services and miscellaneous health services.
  (d) The cash limit for class XV, vote 14, education, arts and libraries, Scotland, will be reduced by £1,000,000 from £222,963,000 to £221,963,000. This reduction, due to slippage in major capital projects, will partly offset increases in other votes.
  (e) The cash limit for class XV, vote 17, Scottish Record Office, will he reduced by £225,000 from £3,772,000 to £3,547,000. This reduction is due to slippage in a major capital project and will partly offset increased provision in other votes.
  (f) The cash limit for class XV, vote 18, General Register Office for Scotland, will be reduced by £1,200,000 from £13,812,000 to £12,612,000. The bulk of this reduction arises front savings made in the costs of running the 1991 census and will partly offset increased provision in other votes.
  (g) The cash limit for class XV, vote 20, Scottish Office administration, will be reduced by £578,000 from £140,908,000 to £140,330,000. This reduction will offset increases in capital and running cost provision in other votes. The running cost limit for the Scottish Office is unchanged.
  (h) The cash limit for class XV, vote 26, hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland, will be reduced by £3,239,000 from £2,355,487,000 to £2,352,248,000. This reduction partly offsets increases in other votes.
  (i) In addition the cash block SO/LA1, which covers non-housing capital expenditure by local authorities, will be reduced by £8,700,000 from £551,650,000 to £ 542,950,000. This reduction will partly offset increases in other votes.
  (j) The non-voted cash block SO/LA2, which covers net capital allocation to local authorities on new town capital expenditure will be reduced by £7,690,000 from £343,496,000 to £335,806,000. This will partly offset increases in other votes.
  293
  All the increases mentioned will be offset by savings or charged to the reserve and therefore will not increase the planned total of public expenditure.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the latest estimates by the Registrar General of Populations of those aged 17 years and over, plus 63 per cent. of those aged 16 years, for each district council area and parliamentary constituency in Scotland, together in each case with the equivalent year's electoral registration figures.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 5 February 1992] : The information requested is given in the tables. For clarity of presentation, the first table includes figures for regions and islands areas and the whole of Scotland. The population figures in Table B have been prepared by a method that involves a certain degree of approximation and therefore they must be treated with some caution.

  Table A: Local Government Areas

  Local government area

  Estimate of Population aged 17 and over plus 63 Per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1990)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1991 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1990)

  Scotland

  4,055,954

  3,914,590

  Borders Region

  83,845

  83,378

  Berwickshire

  15,441

  15,259

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  27,567

  27,400

  Roxburgh

  28,595

  28,499

  Tweeddale

  12,242

  12,220

  Central Region

  215,986

  210,222

  Clackmannan

  37,094

  36,715

  Falkirk

  113,552

  110,223

  Stirling

  65,340

  63,284

  Dumfries and Galloway Region

  119,029

  116,094

  Annandale and Eskdale

  29,621

  29,264

  Nithsdale

  46,065

  44,230

  Stewartry

  18,992

  18,919

  Wigtown

  24,351

  23,681

  Fife Region

  273,336

  263,680

  Dunfermline

  101,428

  95,900

  Kirkcaldy

  115,892

  114,329

  North East Fife

  56,016

  53,451

  Grampian Region

  401,190

  390,495

  Aberdeen City

  172,460

  168,296

  Banff and Buchan

  66,393

  64,136

  Gordon

  56,466

  56,167

  Kincardine and Deeside

  39,483

  38,539

  Moray

  66,388

  63,357

  Highland Region

  159,472

  155,142

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  8,986

  8,944

  Caithness

  20,817

  20,616

  Inverness

  49,494

  47,232

  Lochaber

  14,703

  14,545

  Nairn

  8,185

  8,140

  Ross and Cromarty

  37,517

  36,188

  Skye and Lochalsh

  9,249

  8,973

  Sutherland

  10,521

  10,504

  Lothian Region

  607,502

  591,083

  East Lothian

  69,581

  67,216

  294

  Local government area

  Estimate of Population aged 17 and over plus 63 per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1990)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1991 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1990)

  Edinburgh City

  358,377

  352,219

  Midlothian

  64,514

  60,873

  West Lothian

  115,030

  110,775

  Strathclyde Region

  1,823,260

  1,747,763

  Argyll and Bute

  51,929

  48,068

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  33,224

  31,550

  Clydebank

  37,692

  35,414

  Clydesdale

  45,836

  44,118

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  48,547

  46,895

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  33,910

  33,334

  Cunninghame

  107,007

  105,118

  Dumbarton

  61,509

  57,730

  East Kilbride

  66,385

  64,365

  Eastwood

  48,799

  46,420

  Glasgow City

  551,285

  524,706

  Hamilton

  82,804

  80,750

  Inverclyde

  74,131

  71,158

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  63,618

  62,513

  Kyle and Carrick

  91,529

  88,787

  Monklands

  80,606

  78,113

  Motherwell

  114,673

  109,290

  Renfrew

  159,659

  155,286

  Strathkelvin

  70,117

  64,148

  Tayside Region

  316,134

  302,305

  Angus

  75,577

  72,367

  Dundee City

  138,590

  133,985

  Perth and Kinross

  101,967

  95,953

  Orkney Islands Area

  15,369

  15,206

  Shetland Islands Area

  16,856

  16,149

  Western Isles Islands Area

  23,975

  23,073

  Table B: Parliamentary Constituencies

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Estimate of Population aged 17 and over Plus 63 Per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1990)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1991 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1990)

  Aberdeen North

  61,700

  60,219

  Aberdeen South

  60,100

  58,681

  Angus East

  65,400

  62,769

  Argyll and Bute

  51,900

  48,068

  Ayr

  68,200

  66,126

  Banff and Buchan

  66,400

  64,136

  Caithness and Sutherland

  31,300

  31,120

  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley

  57,300

  55,999

  Central Fife

  57,100

  56,307

  Clackmannan

  49,900

  49,140

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  50,800

  47,861

  Clydesdale

  64,500

  62,325

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  48,500

  46,895

  Cunninghame North

  56,400

  55,390

  Cunninghame South

  50,600

  49,728

  Dumbarton

  61,500

  57,730

  Dumfries

  62,900

  61,235

  Dundee East

  61,000

  58,935

  295

  Parliamentary constituency

  Estimate of Population aged 17 and over Plus 63 Per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1990)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1991 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1990)

  Dundee West

  62,300

  60,218

  Dunfermline East

  53,000

  50,369

  Dunfermline West

  54,100

  51,186

  East Kilbride

  66,400

  64,365

  East Lothian

  69,600

  67,223

  Eastwood

  67,200

  64,276

  Edinburgh Central

  57,000

  56,048

  Edinburgh East

  47,600

  46,800

  Edinburgh Leith

  58,400

  57,415

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  57,400

  56,453

  Edinburgh South

  62,800

  61,682

  Edinburgh West

  61,600

  60,556

  Falkirk East

  53,900

  52,307

  Falkirk West

  52,000

  50,479

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  56,100

  54,855

  Glasgow Cathcart

  48,200

  45,835

  Glasgow Central

  51,300

  48,862

  Glasgow Garscadden

  44,400

  42,270

  Glasgow Govan

  49,100

  46,720

  Glasgow Hillhead

  58,800

  56,003

  Glasgow Maryhill

  50,800

  48,393

  Glasgow Pollok

  49,600

  47,206

  Glasgow Provan

  39,800

  37,838

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  56,500

  53,777

  Glasgow Shettleston

  54,800

  52,129

  Glasgow Springburn

  48,200

  45,873

  Gordon

  79,300

  78,438

  Greenock and Port Glasgow

  55,500

  53,267

  Hamilton

  64,100

  62,543

  Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber

  70,900

  68,848

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  63,600

  62,513

  Kincardine and Deeside

  67,300

  65,660

  Kirkcaldy

  53,100

  52,419

  Linlithgow

  64,000

  61,812

  Livingston

  64,300

  62,070

  Midlothian

  64,500

  60,875

  Monklands East

  50,800

  49,226

  Monklands West

  53,000

  50,132

  Moray

  66,400

  63,357

  Motherwell North

  61,100

  58,215

  Motherwell South

  53,800

  51,236

  North East Fife

  56,000

  53,399

  North Tayside

  58,300

  55,252

  Orkney and Shetland

  32,200

  31,355

  Paisley North

  49,100

  47,770

  Paisley South

  50,500

  49,091

  Perth and Kinross

  69,100

  65,135

  Renfrew West and Inverclyde

  60,300

  58,460

  Ross, Cromarty and Skye

  57,300

  55,174

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  44,000

  43,758

  Stirling

  60,200

  58,296

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  66,800

  61,806

  296

  Parliamentary Constituency

  Estimate of Population aged 17 and over Plus 63 Per cent. of 16 year olds (as at 30 June 1990)

  Parliamentary electors on the 1991 electoral registers (qualifying date 10 October 1990)

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  39,800

  39,608

  Western Isles

  24,000

  23,073

  Boarding Schools
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) for each local education authority and (b) by location, the current state-owned boarding schools and the pupil establishment for each school.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 January 1992]: There are no boarding schools, in the generally understood sense of the term, under education authority management in Scotland.

  Training
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average payment made to training managers for individual trainees on (i) youth training and (ii) employment training by Glasgow development agency last year and for the most recent date available.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 3 February 1992]: Payments to training providers for individual trainees on youth training and employment training within Glasgow are a matter for Glasgow development agency.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the sum of the precepts of the spending authorities on the collecting authorities in Scotland in 1992–93, on the assumption that local authorities spend at their standard spending assessment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: The precept system does not apply in Scotland where each local authority sets its own community charge.

  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those organisations and individuals who responded to the consultation process in the wind-up of East Kilbride development corporation.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 4 February 1992]: Responses were received from the following organisations:

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  East Kilbride District Council

  Glasgow District Council

  Scottish Enterprise

  Lanarkshire Development Agency

  Scottish Homes

  National and Local Government Officers Association

  East Kilbride Business Centre

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

Port State Control
Lord Murray of Epping Forest Lord Murray of Epping Forest asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the operation of port state control in the United Kingdom and in the rest of the European Community.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, we will only be satisfied when safety on ships of all flags is raised to the highest standard. The memorandum of understanding on port state control is proving very successful and is increasingly admired around the world. The United Kingdom has an excellent record in consistently exceeding the inspection target for foreign ships set by the memorandum. Elsewhere in Europe the overall inspection rates have been improving and are now close to target.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I note his reference to the other ports in Europe and also to the great improvement registered in Britain. In order to compare the effectiveness of the system in other ports in Europe, can he direct my attention to any single table which shows comparative performances? I have not been able to find one. Can he confirm that Greece, Spain and Portugal are significantly below the 10 per cent. level compared with the 25 per cent. target and with what I think must now be well over 30 per cent. in the United Kingdom?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give figures for individual countries. The port state control secretariat publishes an annual report. Overall, the inspection rate in the region is over 20 per cent. and has been rising on average by about 1 per cent. each year over the past seven years. That is encouraging. We aim to reach a target which would mean that 80 per cent. of individual ships visiting ports in the region are inspected over a 12-month period.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House what the words "port state control"—three nouns in apposition—mean?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when a foreign ship comes into port it is inspected by the authorities in that country for a number of different things to make sure that it is complies with international safety conventions.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Sub-Committee I of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology has just completed—literally two days ago—its year-long
338
inquiry into the safety aspects of ship design and technology and that the resultant report will, among other topics, deal extensively with port state control?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House of that. The Government look forward very much to receiving that report.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, although there may only be a limited number of foreign ferries involved, foreign freight ferries and some foreign roll-on roll-off ferries are covered by the control? If so, can he say how many of those vessels were inspected and what were the results? Secondly, does the operation of port state control extend to compliance with ILO Convention 147, which includes the social conditions of seafarers? The conditions of seafarers are vital for safety on board ships.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, I cannot give a breakdown by type of foreign ships inspected by port state control. However, I can tell him that any kind of foreign ship is subject to port state control. I can also inform the House that working and living conditions, particularly mentioned in ILO Convention 147, are indeed one of the matters covered by it.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I note the Minister's reference to the desirability of extending port state control wider than the memorandum of understanding. Does he accept that it is desirable to support the proposal of the secretary general of the International Maritime Organisation that it should be done on a world-wide basis and that the ILO might be given powers to audit the safety provisions and achievements of individual ports?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I note that recommendation. Port state control does not apply solely to European Community countries, as the noble Lord's Question suggests. It goes wider than that. Eleven EC members are part of it, together with Norway, Sweden and Finland. The Soviet Union was to have become a member, and I hope that Russia and the Baltic states will wish to join. In addition, the United States and Canada are active non-signatory participants. We would like to see similar arrangements operate in other parts of the world.

Dunkel Proposals: Impact
3.6 p.m
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent damage to the competitiveness of exports of value added foodstuffs following recent proposals by the director general of GATT.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Commission of the European Communities negotiates on behalf of the 12 member states in the GATT. We have made clear to the Commission and

339
other member states that our main anxiety with the Dunkel proposals is very much the point which I believe my noble friend Lord Mottistone has in mind; that is, the inconsistency of the proposed reductions in internal support, border protection and export competition with one another.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, are the Government taking steps to try to have the position of the Dunkel proposals clarified? I understand that no figures have been produced and therefore there is no balance sheet, as it were, to cover the pros and cons of the proposals. Is she aware of any other countries where processed foods of one sort or another may be as at risk as, we fear, are some of the processed foods in this country? Can we get some allies to try to dig something out of Dunkel?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to answer the first part of my noble friend's question, the Commission has not produced such an analysis. Mr. Dunkel's proposals remain subject to negotiation. The council noted that a final assessment of the Dunkel paper would only be possible after and would be influenced by the outcome of further negotiations.
With regard to his second point, widespread anxiety was expressed at the last Agriculture Council. For example, both Denmark and the Netherlands pointed to the possible impact of the proposals on pigmeat and dairy products. The combined effect of Dunkel's proposals on imports and exports would also be significant in a number of Mediterranean sectors, such as wine, I believe.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, arising out of the Question, can the Minister say who gets the benefit from the enormous sums of money disbursed under the CAP? It most certainly is not the farmers. Some of us would like to know who it is.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, all farmers get benefits from the CAP. Only some get direct aid.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the issues raised by this Question emphasise the importance of obtaining a settlement of agricultural matters in GATT negotiations before concluding present discussions about the restructuring of the CAP? Can she say whether the Commission accepts that proposition? Also, do Her Majesty's Government agree that growers of food and processors are mostly unaware of the Community's response to the GATT proposals, which leaves both those categories dangerously in the dark?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is difficult for me to get that information over except by the kind of question asked by the noble Lord today. We hope that it will be taken up by various trade journals and read, and the information thus disseminated. Indeed, I believe that the Commission is aware of its importance. However, it is Mr. MacSharry who negotiates with regard to the Dunkel proposals.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, instead of trying to elicit information on the negotiations by
340
question and answer, as the noble Baroness stated, would the House not be better informed if the Government themselves set out a detailed memorandum explaining their attitude, the points at issue and their views on what the progress ought to be?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord has said it—"what the progress ought to be". We are one of 12 negotiating countries. The best we can do is to influence our colleagues from the other member states.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would it be wise for the United Kingdom to lay all its cards face up on the negotiating table in circumstances such as these when the future course of the negotiations cannot be known?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have made our views very clearly known. I understand that the Commission is well aware of our views and is taking them into account in the discussions on the Dunkel proposals. I cannot remember what the noble Lord asked after that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept that some of us—I include myself—are puzzled about the answer that she gave to the reasonable question asked by her noble friend Lord Cockfield? Is she aware that farmers in this country and in many other parts of the EC—including France, where they riot—are not satisfied that they are doing well out of the common agricultural policy? Is she further aware that our net contribution to the Community's budget is £2,440 million, whereas Spain receives £1,750 million? Those matters need to be explained to ordinary people. If the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, with his experience does not understand it, exactly who does? We need an explanation.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the question asked by my noble friend Lord Cockfield was not on the same point that the noble Lord makes. But neither relates to the Question that we are discussing. I was being extremely broadminded in answering at all.
In case noble Lords are interested, I have remembered the second part of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Only the Commission can make proposals. The Commission proposes and the 12 countries concerned feed in their views and opinions and seek to get allies as hard as they can. Only a fool discloses his whole hand in the middle of negotiations. We have made our ideas known but we cannot propose such matters.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in that case, will the noble Baroness please inform the House what the Government's views are?
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Dunkel proposals which are now on the table continue to support the export of commodity products but put a liability on the export of added value products? Does she accept that Great Britain's opportunity relates to added value products and that the proposal is against the interests of Great

341
Britain? Is my noble friend also aware that, although the United States makes a great stand against export refunds, it is offering three years' credit for milk products that it will offer to markets outside the EC? That is a far greater incentive to export than the export refunds given by the CAP.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall confine my reply to the first part of my noble friend's question which referred to the impact of an agreement on UK farming. An agreement would indeed mean continuing downward pressure as in recent years. The aims of the round make such action inevitable. We believe that the terms proposed will allow farmers time to adjust. My right honourable friend the Minister is working to ensure that the burden is equally spread. A cut of 20 per cent. in support does not mean a 20 per cent. cut in prices. Credit for reforms since 1986 will also apply.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness on the matter. However, the House does not appear to have the information that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, sought. Leaving aside the action that is being taken by the Government, will the noble Baroness at least undertake to put in the Library—I do not ask for the information across the Floor of the House—the Government's estimate of exactly what the damage would be to processed foodstuffs under the Dunkel proposals?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord what the present Dunkel proposals would mean. The internal prices would come down very little so that Community processors would continue to face higher raw material costs than their overseas competitors. But export refunds might be so constrained that they could no longer bridge the gap and the reduction in border protection would simultaneously expose processors to greater competition from imports.
We have put all those points to the Commission. We have had support from certain countries. The Commission has taken our points on board and is negotiating on the points that we have raised against the proposals as they now stand. I cannot say fairer than that.

No. 2 Marsham Street
3.17 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to reach a decision on the future of No. 2 Marsham Street which at present houses the Department of the Environment.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is today announcing that the building at 2 Marsham Street is to be demolished.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I most warmly thank my noble friend for that reply which for a moment left me speechless. Will she accept my warmest congratulations on her part in this first step towards removing an eyesore and—this is not unimportant —on persuading the Treasury to abandon for once the short-term view, to which it is addicted?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. It is right to say that it has been a co-operative effort.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, perhaps I may associate my party with the hearty congratulations offered from all sides of the House to the Government on the major success of their policy. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and everyone associated with the matter, except the architect. May we know who the architect was? Is it a precedent that may be followed in other parts of London? Will a list of demolishable buildings now be provided?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord in thanking my noble friend Lord Peyton. He has kept a robust, downward pressure on the department to expedite matters. The architect was an in-house architect. I believe that his name was Mr. Bedford. He both designed and managed the building. It was in fact approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the architect for the new building be chosen by competition so that the public have a chance to see what is proposed, bearing in mind the very poor quality of government buildings that for the most part have been put up since the war?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. It is too early to say anything about a new building on that site or about what will happen on the site. The present Secretary of State is very much in favour of competition and therefore if there is to be a new building on the site, I believe that will be a way forward.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, what will happen to the present occupants of the building pending reconstruction?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a study will be carried out in relation to the people who presently work in the building. Not all may require a Westminster presence and it is possible that there will be relocations for those people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we too offer our congratulations to the Secretary of State on his momentous and welcome decision. Is there any truth in the story in this morning's newspapers that Arup Associates have advised that on that site it would be possible better to accommodate as many people in a building of between only nine and 11 storeys?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, a study carried out by Arup was considered. However, I cannot comment on a specific part of that recommendation. If I can write in more detail to the noble Lord I shall do so. I believe

343
that we are starting with a clean sheet in considering the future of this site and the Arup report will not be part of that consideration.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister consider publishing the names of the members of the Royal Fine Art Commission who, back in the mists of time, approved this ghastly building, if only to warn their successors?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the information is in the public domain. I am afraid that I do not know the answer.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an estimate of the cost of the site clearance and the demolition of the building, given the other calls on public expenditure in these difficult times?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot do so. The building was in need of substantial repair and that was the starting point of the study which led to the view that it should be demolished. The costs of repairing the building considerably outweigh the sensible economics of replacing it.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that many people carry on business and live in the vicinity of the building? Its demolition will create a great deal of noise and dust and I suspect that it will take a long time. Will she bear in mind that other people will be affected by the manoeuvre?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend has made a serious point. Of course the demolition will have to be managed in a way that causes the least disruption to those living in the vicinity. On a note of slight cynicism, I suspect that this is the point at which the members of the committee for the preservation of Marsham Street will come out of the woodwork.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Royal Fine Art Commission was in an impossible position during the 1950s and 1960s? At that time property developers demanded so much per square metre that no decent building could ever be erected. Had the Royal Fine Art Commission done its job properly, virtually no commercial building would have been built in London during the 1950s and 1960s. I believe that that was one of the reasons Sir John Betjeman resigned from the Royal Fine Art Commission.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is true to say that that it was not the best era of all time for architecture. By and large the buildings which were then erected have not stood the test of time.

Speedometer Testing
3.24 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage garages to provide facilities for the testing of speedometers.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the regulations governing speedometers in use require only that they be kept in good working order. There is no evidence to suggest that they need to be checked regularly for accuracy and we could not justify encouraging garages to provide such facilities. Checks on the accuracy of speedometers can already be carried out at any of the 450 approved tachograph centres in Great Britain.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not easy for the private motorist to discover the location of a tachograph centre? Am I right in believing that most speedometers are fast and that it is perfectly legitimate to have one which registers 79½ miles per hour, to be exact, when the actual speed of the car is only 70 miles per hour? With all the cameras with which we are threatened for checking speed, is there not something to be said for encouraging motorists to have a better knowledge of how fast they are travelling than the great majority possess at the moment?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the regulations state that the reading can deviate from the true speed of the vehicle by between 0 and plus 10 per cent. plus 4 kilometres per hour. It is therefore biased to prevent the speedometer from understating the true speed of the vehicle. In other words, the speedometer is allowed to register, say, 60 when one is travelling at 55 miles per hour but it is not allowed to register 60 when one is travelling at 65 miles per hour. Therefore, the error is all on the right side.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question contains a serious element about the prevention of accidents? It is probable that the overwhelming majority of motorists do not know where to go if they are suspicious of their speedometer readings. Therefore, cannot some publicity be given to the matter so that the conscientious motorist can have his speedometer tested? The fundamental point of the noble Lord's Question relates to the prevention of accidents in addition to an undue and wrongful police summons when a speedometer is not working correctly.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, there is no evidence to show that the situation creates a problem, certainly not one that might cause accidents.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not the case that few motorists will know the details of the regulations referring to construction and use to which the Minister referred? Is it not the case that in the section giving advice to drivers before driving the Highway Code states:
"make sure that … your speedometer is in working order"?
How does the ordinary motorist know whether, before driving, his speedometer is in working order? Is it proposed that there should be discussions with the motoring organisations, traders and manufacturing organisations to ascertain whether the MOT can be revised and equipment can be standardised? I notice that the Chief Whip is questioning me but I have asked only two questions.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am delighted to answer both questions. There is no fundamental problem. A motorist can easily check whether his speedometer is working reasonably merely by looking at it as he drives along, which I hope he will do frequently. There is no proposal to include the testing of speedometers in the MOT. The cost of the test would have to be increased substantially in order to cover the costs of procuring the specialised equipment, the time to train staff and the extra time to test each vehicle. That is simply not justified in road safety terms.
Lord Brain: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the major problems with speedometers is that they depend on the tyre pressure, the tyre wear, the load on the car and so forth? There can easily be an error of 5 per cent., usually minus, on the speedometer reading at any time.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is as may be but I should not have thought that it would create too much of a problem.

Business
3.28 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Charities Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1992 will be taken.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as regards the Business of the House perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether it is intended to give noble Lords an opportunity to express, perhaps briefly and informally, their strong feelings of affection and devotion to Her Majesty on this the 40th anniversary of her accession. I understand that it is Her Majesty's wish that there should be no formal Motion and for that reason no formal Motion has been tabled. I also understand that by use of a procedural device another place is giving its Members the opportunity to say what your Lordships too might feel about this tremendous occasion. Can my noble friend say whether we shall be given an opportunity, however short and informal, to say something of the same on a matter on which your Lordships are unanimous in their enthusiasm?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for what he has said because he has given us the very opportunity for which he is asking. Your Lordships will wish to know that a message went from the Cabinet this morning conveying warmest good wishes to Her Majesty on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of her accession to the Throne. The
346
message was in recognition of the incomparable contribution which Her Majesty has made to the life of our nation throughout her reign.
I am sure that those are sentiments which the whole House would wish to endorse. I know that I speak for all your Lordships if I express our congratulations to Her Majesty.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends, perhaps I may support the felicitous words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty's accession to the Throne. Her reign has been memorable in so many ways and marked with great changes and historic events. However, throughout Her Majesty has been a wise and dedicated Queen of these islands and we wish her many more years to reign over us.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are all aware of today's anniversary. Probably most of us who are old enough remember what we were doing 40 years ago when we first heard the news of the death of his late Majesty. We thank Her Majesty the Queen for the focal point of sanity and stability over four fluctuating decades which she has provided. We hope that we shall be here to celebrate, perhaps more formally and even more rumbustiously, the jubilee in 10 years' time.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I am quite sure that all those sitting on the Cross-Benches today will wish to be associated with what has already been said. We all appreciate so much what Her Majesty has done in those wonderful 40 years and how much service she has given not only to this country but also to the Commonwealth. Many Cross-Bench Peers will have had the honour of serving Her Majesty. I am sure that they will be very sorry not to be here today. However, I know that they will wish to be associated with all the thanks and congratulations which have already been expressed.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, those of us sitting on these Benches would wish to associate ourselves with all that has been said in the last few minutes. We all greatly admire Her Majesty and are grateful to her for her consistency, dignity and devotion to duty, and so much else besides.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Lockwood.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to he printed.

Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend the maximum period for which an order under Section 3 of the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 may remain in force. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

London Underground (King's Cross) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Business of the House
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This Motion is to dispense with Standing Order 44 for the specific purpose of taking the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill through its remaining stages in one day. Your Lordships will note that this Bill has been certified as a money Bill and the procedure has been agreed through the usual channels.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Bill through its remaining stages on Tuesday, 11th February.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Administration Bill [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, your Lordships will notice that there are five further Bills to be subject to the same Motion. They are closely connected Bills. It may be that your Lordships' Procedure Committee will be able to devise a somewhat neater procedure for dealing with such Bills than has been thought of hitherto.
It has become more common recently for parliamentary counsel preparing consolidations to prepare a series of Bills rather than a single Bill because of the size of the subject matter. That has proved convenient to users but it has meant that your Lordships are apt to be subjected to seeing me perform in a way which may not be particularly illuminating and which takes some time. It would be advantageous if we could find a way to simplify the procedure. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, at once I associate myself with what the noble and learned Lord said in regard to the procedure on these matters. It is not just the
348
mental agility of the noble and learned Lord which we have come to admire on recent occasions, but his athletic ability and the way that he dashes from one place to another. He always does that with great dignity.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chancellor.)
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Interpretation of Part I, etc.]
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 1Z:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert:
(" "registered housing association" has the meaning conveyed by subsection 3(2) of the Housing Associations Act 1985;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl that this amendment was tabled late. I attempted to give the noble Earl and the Government notice of what it contained yesterday afternoon and I hope that the message reached him. It may be for the convenience of the House if when moving Amendment No. 1Z I speak also to Amendment No. 1A.
These are paving amendments to a series of other amendments which have not yet been tabled. Perhaps

349
I may tell the House the position and the problem. The main thrust of the amendments is concerned with preserving the right of certain charitable housing associations to register with the Charity Commissioners. At first sight it is an unexceptionable proposition. But the Bill creates certain difficulties.
The Charities Act 1960 does not compel excepted charities to register but it allows them to register if they so choose. Those provisions are unaltered by the Charities Bill that we are considering. Excepted charities include exempt charities as defined by the Second Schedule to the Act. Paragraph (g) of the schedule—I am sorry that the matter is complicated but it concerns a slightly legal argument—refers to industrial and provident societies. Many charitable housing associations are constituted as industrial and provident societies and are thus exempt charities. Around 25 per cent. of those exempt charities have chosen to register with the Charity Commissioners.
Although the 1960 Act permits registration, it specifically excludes exempt charities, even though registered, from the supervisory powers of the Charity Commissioners. They are excluded from each of the powers and the latter are defined on a section by section basis. Because of that statutory exclusion there is no opportunity for exempt charities voluntarily to make themselves subject to the Charity Commissioners' powers.
The housing associations are disturbed by the proposal and the result of the legislation we are considering. The Charity Commissioners are naturally under pressure to exert their supervision over charities and in that respect their powers are enhanced by the Bill. Not unreasonably the commissioners have expressed anxiety that there are certain registered charities over which they have no control. Their original idea therefore was to say that those charities should be deregistered. It is that proposal which has caused the difficulty for housing associations.
Housing associations which are exempt charities are extremely disturbed by the proposal. They believe—I think there is ground for that belief—that loss of registration will have a range of damaging effects and detract from the effectiveness of their charitable work. One solution may be for charitable industrial and provident societies to convert into charitable companies or trusts. I suppose that is possible, but apart from the cost and the unnecessarily bureaucratic nature of doing so, there is a simpler way.
Instead of deregistering exempt charities or forcing them to alter their constitutions, the thrust of my argument is that the 1960 Act and the current Bill be amended so that where an exempt charity is registered it is subject to the supervisory powers of the Charity Commissioners. Exempt charities which remain unregistered will be totally unaffected.
In tabling the amendments the National Federation of Housing Associations tells me that it is confident of the support in principle of both the Charity Commissioners, with whom they have already discussed the matter, and the Housing Corporation. That is the point at which these somewhat obscure and almost incomprehensible amendments are directed. I shall be grateful if the Minister can give some
350
indication of how the Government approach the problem, which is a real one, and if need be we can return to these proposals at a later stage.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for being kind enough to apologise for tabling these amendments late. They were tabled the day before yesterday and, as he realises, that is only a short time ago. That was a generous courtesy compared with the 20-odd amendments tabled yesterday. The noble Lord will realise that it makes it slightly difficult for us to understand the amendments, particularly when it is said that they are paving amendments for a lot of other amendments which the noble Lord did not find it suitable or convenient to table.
When I examined the amendments I wondered how they could operate without the paving amendment. The amendments will make sense only if Amendments Nos. 39 and 42, tabled by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, were to succeed. There would otherwise be no mention of registered housing associations in the Bill and therefore no need to define them.
Exempt charities are those listed in the Second Schedule to the 1960 Act. They are exempt from all aspects of the Charity Commissioners' jurisdiction, except that the commissioners may waive the disqualification of a trustee of an exempt charity from being a trustee under Clause 45 of the Bill. Exempt charities are therefore quite different from other charities, and deliberately so. They are exempt because they are subject to some other jurisdiction. It is unnecessary therefore to place them under the Charity Commission as well.
Exempt charities may be entered in the register at their own request and if the commissioners agree. Once registered of course they are registered charities but they are still exempt from the majority of the provisions which regulate a charity's affairs, particularly those which come under the Bill.
The Charity Commissioners' current policy is not to register exempt charities. Those which are currently registered are being removed from the register and the register will henceforth be a register of charities which are required to register—those which are subject to the commissioners' jurisdiction. The thrust of the Bill is to ensure that charities which are required to be registered should be registered and should disclose their registered status on various documents. The purpose of the disclosure is to alert people to the fact that they are dealing with a registered charity and that information can be obtained in regard to it at the Charity Commission; for instance, names and addresses of trustees, the accounts and so forth. That is what will happen to the charities which are registered. The commissioners cannot obtain that kind of information from exempt charities. It is therefore not appropriate for them to be registered.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I find that a somewhat disappointing answer. Indeed, I think it is right to say that that is not quite the attitude that the Charity

351
Commissioners expressed to the housing associations in their discussions before the Bill arrived at your Lordships' House.
If they are registered now, although they are exempt, why on earth should they not continue to be registered exempt charities in the future? That is the simple point. I thought I understood the argument before the noble Earl rose. By the time he sat down I was not sure that I did. The noble Earl read from the piece of paper in front of him with that degree of assurance that a sinking man usually displays when he is grasping at a straw. If the noble Earl understood his answer better than I understood my brief, he is a better man than I am.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House, after that courteous response to my reply, to say that I understood the answer perfectly. The noble Lord asks why we need to register something that is exempt. The whole point of it being exempt is that it does not have to come under the auspices of the Charity Commission. The point of a register is to ensure that those charities over which the Charity Commission has jurisdiction are duly registered. People can go to the Charity Commission and find out the names and addresses of the trustees of the charities which are registered and cannot for those which are exempt.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sure where that takes us. The difficulty that the noble Earl is not addressing is that it is not a question of registering de novo exempt charities; it is a question of charities which are at present exempt and which are also at present registered. In other words, it is not a question of doing something new but of preserving a situation which at present exists. In those circumstances I hoped that the Government would look at the amendment with some sympathy. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [The register of charities]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 23, after ("charity") insert:
("( ) the names and addresses of at least three trustees of the charity.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple and small amendment but rather an important one. It deals with the registration of charities. Clause 2 of the Bill requires the Charity Commissioners to keep a register of charities. It amends the 1960 Act as regards what should go in the register. The clause provides that:
"The register shall contain the name of every registered charity and such other particulars of, and such other information relating to, every such charity as the Commissioners think fit".
My amendment proposes to add after the word "charity" in line 23,
"the names and addresses of at least three trustees of the charity".
The important words here are that there should be three names and addresses. The Charity Commissioners may seek further information under
352
what I have just read for registration purposes. To ask for at least three names and addresses of trustees implies that for future registrations at least three trustees will be required. That is the underlying purpose of this amendment. I believe that two trustees is never enough and that one trustee is even less acceptable.
For registration purposes, to be regarded as a registered charity there should be at least three trustees. With great respect to my legal friends, there should also be a stipulation that of the three trustees not more than two should be acting professionally. As noble Lords are aware, trustees acting professionally can charge professional fees for their services. In the need for supervision of funds a lay voice can very often bring wisdom and experience. Nevertheless, for the moment I say that there should be at least three trustees.
In many ways this Bill does an enormous amount of good in tightening up the framework within which charities operate in this country. However, in some ways it does not do quite enough. The amendment provides one of the ways in which the administration of charities can be brought under tighter control. My fear about two trustees is that either they do not agree or that they agree too much under the domination of one or by agreement between two. My experience leads me to believe that a third trustee is almost indispensable if power is to rest in the hands of trustees. That is the effect of the amendment.
I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment for future registrations. I do not know whether it is possible under subsection (3) (b) for the commissioners to stipulate three or any number of trustees. It may be that is not possible. That is why I want it to be in the Bill itself that at least three names and addresses should be registered. I do not believe that I need say any more. It is an added precaution in the search for integrity in the administration of funds.
Today we have genuine grounds for concern about the integrity of a great many people who are handling funds which do not belong to them. They are trustees. This work requires an unimpeachable standard of integrity and fair dealing. I do not believe that anyone should feel that there is a reflection here. It is merely that this provision fortifies the authority of trustees when there are three of them to take decisions. It is in that spirit that I hope that the Government will feel that it is a good idea and that the House will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I find a little difficulty with his amendment. There are two technical reasons why I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it. The first is that the amendment refers just "trustees" rather than "charity trustees". If one uses the word "trustees" that could include custodian trustees, even the Official Custodian for Charities, who has no power or responsibility to manage the charity. The name of such a person is not likely to be of any use to any member of the public and would simply clutter up the register. When one considers that there are 170,000

353
charities, simple mathematics will show that if we were to accept the noble Lord's amendment there would be a great deal of material going on to the register.
The second reason is that some charities have fewer than three trustees, so the commissioners would be unable to comply in respect of those charities with the requirement which the noble Lord's amendment introduces. I am thinking mostly of charities which have a corporate body such as a parish council or a trust corporation as their sole trustee.
Even if one gets through that hoop, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary on other grounds. Clause 23(1) of the Bill will require the trustees of all registered charities to prepare an annual report containing:
"such other information relating to the charity or to its trustees or officers as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
The regulations will require the names of all trustees, and indeed some of the senior officers, to be given as part of the annual report. The annual report itself is required under Clause 23(6) to be sent to the commissioners each year; and the commissioners are required under Clause 25(1) to make the report available for public inspection. Therefore, the trustees' names will be in the public domain by virtue of being contained in the annual report.
The regulations to which I have just referred are not likely to require that the trustees' addresses be given in the annual report. I do not believe that there is great merit in requiring that their addresses should appear on the register. Most trustees would quite understandably give their address as that of the charity where the charity has an office and that address would appear on the register anyway. But to require trustees in all cases to give their private addresses would be an intrusion which would be difficult to justify. It could undermine the perfectly proper arrangements which trustees of larger charities commonly make to have all approaches made to them as trustees dealt with in the first instance by the charity's administrative employees.
There is another reason why I suggest that this amendment is not suitable. In a very few cases neither the names nor the addresses of trustees will be available to the public. For the sake of example, I am thinking of the trustees of a women's refuge who might be put in personal danger if their names and addresses were made publicly available. For that purpose, Clause 23(2) (b) allows regulations which are made under subsection (1) to enable the commissioners to dispense with that requirement that the information about trustees be included in the annual report.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord to have this information publicly available. From what I have said I believe that he realises that it is publicly available and that it is in the public domain other than in the kind of instance which I have just cited. I believe that that respects all the noble Lord's wishes.
4 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I expected my proposal would relate to future registration. I was not seeking
354
to impose this condition on charities already registered; that would be quite a big operation and put a lot of people to a great deal of trouble. But I thought it was a reasonable additional safeguard for the future. However, the Charity Commissioners will have some freedom to prescribe what they want from the trustees as a condition of registration. That and the report that they will have to make may have to suffice at the moment.
However, I feel that the benefits of charitable status should be conferred with fastidious regard to the conduct of charitable work. There are great benefits from registration as a charity. I remind your Lordships—because I shall refer to it again on another amendment—that every registration of a charity lays claim to part of the nation's revenue. A very large part of the nation's revenue is being relieved to bodies registered as charities. The amount of tax relief to charities at the present time amounts to billions of pounds. Indeed, the whole range of tax concessions shows how important this element is becoming. If one reckons charity relief, mortgage interest relief, vocational pensions contributions relief and relief of interest on pension funds from tax, there is stored up there not a redemption of a penny in the pound off tax, but a considerably larger amount.
Therefore, we cannot extend the benefits of registration, which are tangible and important, without laying down reasonable conditions under which that benefit shall be enjoyed. Otherwise, it becomes slack, and the registration of charities becomes the kind of thing to be sought, and obtained, without very much regard as to how things are to be run.
However, I shall not continue. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment and hope that the Charity Commissioners will take note of this short part of the debate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 1A not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 42, leave out from ("money") to end of line 2 on page 3.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is to a great extent, but not wholly, a probing amendment. I am afraid that fortuitously this is the first opportunity I have had to move it.
I had a message a moment ago that this measure was required urgently on the statute book. The implications of that message were obvious: that your Lordships were required to deal with 168 amendments—many of them Government amendments—on a Thursday, with a break at seven o'clock. Under those circumstances, I shall not move this amendment, but I shall write to the noble Earl with my point and, if necessary, return to the matter at Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 8, at end insert:
("(7) Section 4 of the 1960 Act, as amended by this section, and with the omission of repealed provisions, is set out in Schedule 1 to this Act.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 160. I undertook in Committee to consider whether something like a Keeling schedule could be produced to show how Section 4 of the 1960 Act would look as amended. Members of the Committee felt that it would be more helpful if that could be done. These amendments to Clause 2 and Schedule 1 are the result of that consideration.
Your Lordships will see, set out in Schedule 1, the version of Section 4 of the 1960 Act which will be produced if the Bill becomes law in its present form. The words in bold type represent words added or changed by the Bill; the words in ordinary type are already in Section 4. I hope that your Lordships will find that helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly express my warm appreciation and gratitude to my noble friend for this amendment. Had the Bill remained as it was, it would have been necessary for anyone seeking to ascertain what the law was to have four or five books in front of him, the contents of which were far from clear. This amendment to the schedule to which my noble friend refers contains the law as it will be after this Bill is passed. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for what he has done.
Before I sit down, I should like to go further. It is not often that I say this sort of thing, but as a Member of the Public Bill Committee I should like to say to my noble friend how very much I appreciate the way in which he listened with care and reacted to the suggestions made by the Committee during the debates that we had. I hope that he will accept my grateful thanks and pass on a word of appreciation to his officials and his advisers, who must have laboured mightily in the work that they have done between the Committee stage and the stage at which we are now. I am most grateful to him.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, at Second Reading there were suggestions that the 1960 Act, which is the foundation of this Bill, should be made, together with the Bill, a Keeling schedule to this Bill. The noble Earl rightly said that the 1960 Act was far too massive for that way of dealing with it. My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman then put down a mini Keeling schedule, singling out Section 20 of the 1960 Act, as amended. Although that had never been done before, the noble Earl welcomed it.
Although it had never been done before, neither my noble and learned friend nor the noble Earl suffered from centipede syndrome. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, put down a similar, in effect, consolidation of another section, but put it into the body of the Bill by his amendment. It would be untidy to have one mini Keeling schedule in the body of the Bill in the enacting clauses and another in the schedule. Therefore like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I very much welcome what has been done in this case. In other words, both mini Keeling schedules are in schedules to the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, as one who did not serve or attend the Committee, I should like to say how delighted I was to see, when the Bill was reprinted for the Report stage, that there was a Keeling schedule in it. I have long been one who has sought to encourage governments—when I have spoken from the Opposition and encourage parliamentary draftsman, when I have been in office—to include Keeling schedules. They make the task of those who have to use the law a great deal easier. I am delighted that my noble friend has succeeded in persuading the draftsmen to do that on this occasion.
I have never understood why it is that among Parliamentary Counsel there seems to be a sort of presumption against Keeling schedules. However, such has been my experience—they do not like to put these in. Ministers have to use considerable influence in order to be able to persuade them to do that. My noble friend referred to "something like a Keeling schedule" and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to a "mini Keeling schedule". I have always understood that there is only one kind of Keeling schedule and that it can apply to a whole clause or to a whole part of a Bill. I suppose—I have not checked the records—that a Keeling schedule can apply to a whole Bill. This is a Keeling schedule and we welcome it, but are there other kinds of Keeling schedule?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not know whether this is a mini Keeling schedule or a major Keeling schedule but I warmly welcome the fact that it has been introduced. I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. It will now be a great deal easier for trustees to appreciate their responsibilities. I am glad that the noble Earl has moved the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the amendment. It is not an easy Bill, to put it mildly, in any event. The amendment and the schedule make it marginally easier for people to understand it. We are grateful to the noble Earl for taking on board the points expressed in Committee and for coming back in the way that he has.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am overwhelmed that noble Lords should be pleased with what the Government have done. That is an unusual scenario in which to find oneself and I hope that it continues.
My noble friend Lord Peyton was kind enough to express his thanks. I shall pass on those thanks to officials and to those who have advised me because it is they who were responsible for advising on what is a difficult matter. I am glad that we have been able to do something that has met with the satisfaction of the House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was against a Keeling schedule and wanted to see statutes in force altered, while others were in favour of a Keeling schedule. The fact that we have somehow managed to satisfy both ends of the spectrum gives me personal satisfaction. I hope that it will make the Bill easier to understand.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Northern Ireland: Security Situation
4.12 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
"It is my sad duty to report that since the beginning of this month 12 people have died in circumstances directly related to the continuation of terrorism in the Province.
"The proscribed loyalist terrorist organisation, the Ulster Freedom Fighters, has admitted responsibility for two attacks, which have led to the deaths of six people. They include five, two of them teenagers, murdered in a bookmaker's office in Belfast yesterday. Two persons have been arrested in connection with the earlier UFF murder of a taxi driver at his home in North Belfast. Three persons were killed by an off-duty police officer in the Sinn Fein Advice Centre on the Falls Road. That officer subsequently took his own life. The IRA claimed responsibility for the murder of a bread delivery man in Dungannon and is believed to have been responsible for the attempted murder yesterday near Belleek of a dog warden, who was also a part-time member of the UDR. In this incident, one terrorist was killed. Following it, three persons have been apprehended by the Garda Siochana. In relation to all of these incidents vigorous follow-up action is in train and will continue.
"I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy to all those who have been so suddenly bereaved. Each of these deaths represents a personal tragedy. But each is also part of a wider tragedy in which the whole community, Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, shares. For let there be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland deeply abhor, and want no part of, the wanton destruction perpetrated by that tiny minority who, without democratic, moral or spiritual authority, have taken upon themselves the right to decide who should live or die.
"As we have seen in recent days, notably in the trade union rally in Belfast last Tuesday and in the unequivocal statement of leading Churchmen, this overwhelming majority of decent people is increasingly making its voice heard and its influence felt. And individuals are coming forward—making use of the confidential telephone and in other ways—to help the police prevent outrages and to apprehend the criminals. It is vitally important that this should continue. Terrorists—from whichever side they come—represent no one but themselves. The community has a vital role to play in making them realise that they will never achieve their objectives through violence.
358
"But a particular responsibility for dealing with terrorism lies with the Government and the security forces. We will not shirk that responsibility. The House will recall the announcement last month of the arrival in Northern Ireland of substantial numbers of additional troops. The level of military reinforcement for the police will continue to be kept under review and further adjustments may he made.
"We will take whatever action is necessary to bring terrorism to an end. But we will not abandon the underlying principle of our security policy which is a determination to deal with terrorism under the rule of law. In accordance with that policy, the police supported by the Armed Forces have achieved, in the past few weeks, further significant successes. A very high proportion of intended attacks is being prevented or aborted. Substantial quantities of arms and explosives (some of it clearly intended for immediate use) have been seized. In these and other situations, important arrests have been made. There will be more seizures and more arrests. The House will recall that almost 400 people were charged with terrorist related crimes in Northern Ireland last year.
"Last week the leaders of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland agreed that, at my invitation, they would meet to consider matters of common concern in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. No matter is of greater shared concern to the people of Northern Ireland and their political leaders than the present security situation. In view of this, and against the background of recent events, the Prime Minister has indicated that he proposes to invite the four leaders to a meeting with both of us to concentrate on that issue. This will ensure that at the highest levels of government we can hear directly from political leaders who understand and represent the views of the people in Northern Ireland who inevitably have borne the brunt of recent events.
"The security situation in Northern Ireland is a matter for serious concern; but it is not, and will not be allowed to get, out of control. That is my conviction and that of the chief constable. As the chief constable said yesterday, a number of new anti-terrorist measures have recently been introduced in Belfast. The House may be assured that, in the discharge of their responsibilities for security in Northern Ireland, the Government and the security forces will take whatever further measures are judged to be necessary and effective." My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland. On these Benches we wholly condemn the carnage and we express our sympathy to the bereaved and to those who have been injured. We stand squarely behind the Government's determination to deal effectively with

359
terrorism, as set out in the Statement. Our hope is that the Statement will go some way to restore confidence in Northern Ireland.
We watched yesterday, as we have watched over the past month, with a feeling of revulsion the horrific scenes of carnage in Northern Ireland. The good news from Northern Ireland was the brave march against intimidation to which the Minister referred. It took place in Belfast last Tuesday and was organised by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. That was good news. Yet at times we detect words of almost despair on the streets of Belfast. The violence is horrific, frequent and regular—regular in as much as it generates the fear that every act of violence will lead to retaliation. All that generates a fear that all that is most cherished and valued in civilised life is now being threatened. However, the Government are right to emphasise, as they do, that all is not lost and that the situation is not out of control.
In this situation I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister to elaborate a little more in public on the broad grounds on which the Government agree with the assessment of the Chief Constable that the security position is still under control. We do not question that judgment. But I have a feeling that if the Minister can elaborate further on the reasons for that assessment, his words could bring further comfort to the people of Northern Ireland and help to restore confidence.
The Statement discloses that a very high proportion of terrorist ventures in Northern Ireland last year were frustrated by the security forces. Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question on the relationship between the police and the security forces. Can he unconditionally reassure the House that there is a full, free and unimpeded flow of all relevant information and intelligence between the Army and the RUC, and vice versa? That question is prompted mainly by the mitigation evidence presented in the High Court in Belfast last week during the trial of Brian Nelson.
We wholeheartedly support the determination of the Government and the RUC to bring the murderers to trial. We note from the Statement that there were over 400 people charged last year with terrorist offences. That is good news. But if the information is available, can the Minister tell the House whether that figure is higher or lower than the number of charges made during the two preceding years? Further, can the Minister confirm whether the RUC is making satisfactory progress in the hunt for the murderers of the seven Protestant workmen killed on their way home from work a fortnight ago? Alternatively, are the inquiries running into unexpected difficulties?
We fully support the Statement. We appreciate that the Government may be under pressure from some quarters to produce a simple and quick solution. Of course, in a sense that is understandable bearing in mind the fact that the people of Northern Ireland have been suffering for 20 years. However, we do not believe that there is a solution which is likely to be enduring and which would bring peace and reconciliation to Northern Ireland.
Finally, it is for the political leaders in Northern Ireland, with encouragement from the Government
360
and with the support of the political parties, to develop the political formula which can lead to an enduring political solution. Men and women who live and work and have their being in Northern Ireland are suffering under an intolerable burden. They are entitled to expect as strong as necessary political leadership. That is why we fully support the Government in their efforts to persuade the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to search for a political solution. We urge that those talks should proceed on the basis that they will continue, whichever party forms the next government.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I may join the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in expressing from these Benches our great sympathy and sorrow over these tragic events not only to the families of the bereaved, for whom these are indeed terrible days, but also to the whole community in Northern Ireland which bears with such stoic courage the succession of violent events. There cannot be anyone in your Lordships' House who does not feel sympathy for the ordinary people of Northern Ireland for what they have to put up with day in and day out.
It is becoming a very serious situation. I am sure that the Secretary of State was right to ask people not to lose their nerve in the face of such provocations. However, at the same time we must look with a very cold eye at what is happening. We have had an outbreak of machine gunning, gang warfare and multiple deaths on a scale that we have not seen for a long time, even in Northern Ireland. We should make no mistake about it, accustomed as we are to hearing about the horrors of the IRA: the UFF and the Protestant paramilitaries have a young and fanatical leadership which is growing in insolence every day and which is every bit as dangerous as the IRA.
Therefore we have two groups of people firing at each other across the streets and at the people of Northern Ireland. One response—it is the right response and one on which we fully support the Government's approach—is to do everything we can through security to make life safer for the people who live in Northern Ireland. I believe that the police deserve our congratulations, together with the Army, for the arms finds which have recently been made. That has been a considerable breakthrough. However, I should like to echo one question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, about the Brian Nelson case. We need some reassurance, which perhaps the Minister will be able to give us, that relationships and liaison between the Army and the police in Northern Ireland are everything that they should be. Although this is not the proper time to go deeply into the matter, from reading reports of that case it seems that there is a question about the effectiveness of communications between the two branches of the security services.
The Government have our support in trying to do everything that they can on the security front. But of course the other response must be, as it has always been, political. The Government's strategy is to make progress on the social front, which they continue to do, to make progress where possible on security—and events in the past few months have, I believe, been

361
setbacks—and to make progress on the political front on which ultimately any prospect for a lasting peace must depend.
We must recognise the fact that since the talks broke down last year violence has increased exponentially in Northern Ireland. There is a connection between the two. Into the vacuum of the hopelessness of no political progress and no meaningful peace talks it is inevitable that those who can offer violence should fill the gap and become the dominant theme. When the Secretary of State and his right honourable friend the Prime Minister meet the leaders of the four constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, I earnestly hope that on their agenda they have not only security, which perhaps the Statement implies; I would welcome the Minister's reassurance that the agenda at the meeting will be primarily political. The question for the leaders of the four constitutional parties is: when are they going to get down to meaningful talks again? In turn, the question for the Government, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister is: how can they avoid a British general election getting in the way of a resumption of peace talks?
When the talks broke down last year I warned that a British general election could, as it did in 1974, have a malign effect on the resumption of talks in Northern Ireland. I fear that that is happening now. I fear that the prospect of an election makes it more difficult for people to settle down; indeed, the various parties may hope for a better outcome after the election. Perhaps I may say from these Benches—I hope that it applies as regards all sides of the House—that all parties are united in wanting the Northern Ireland parties to get together again. All parties are united in the maintenance of the Anglo-Irish Agreement unless and until the parties to it freely agree upon something better. There is no short cut available to either side as regards the troubles in Northern Ireland; in other words, there is no alternative to getting together to talk. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The Government can do much to make it plain that the time for talk is now.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their reception of the Statement. They gave unequivocal support for the action that is being taken against terrorism. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked me to give an assurance, and chapter and verse, that the security position is under control. First, a large number of charges were made last year. I believe that I said over the past 14 months. Nearly 400 terrorist-related offences were charged and brought to court. A considerable number of them are for murder and attempted murder. They show that the actions of the security forces are translated into charges brought to court.
The other point embedded in the Statement is that it is reckoned by the chief constable that as many as four out of five attempted or intended terrorist actions have to be aborted because of the high level of activity of the security forces. There is a huge amount of patrolling going on at present. A high level of manpower is involved in the Province. If we take the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, the regular
362
Army and the RUC, there are approaching 30,000 members of the security forces in Northern Ireland at present.
My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, on the point about matters being under control, is that it is one thing for terrorists to kill innocent civilians in cold blood, but when they do so I believe that they know in their hearts that it will not help them attain their objectives.
The noble Lords asked me about the free flow of information between the Army and the RUC. The very greatest care is taken to see that there is a free flow of information to the police from the Army, and the other way around. That is extremely important. All the circumstances surrounding the Nelson case are being examined carefully, but it would not be right to say anything more today about intelligence matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked to be assured that satisfactory progress was being made in the hunt for the murderers of the men who had been doing an honest day's work on a security force base and who were merely returning home in a large van and were blown up at the crossroads at Teebane. That hunt is being prosecuted with the greatest energy by the RUC, as indeed is the hunt for those who murdered in the appalling shootings that occurred in the Ormeau Road in Belfast yesterday.
Finally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, perhaps I may say that when, at the end of the Statement, I repeated the words of my right honourable friend that the Prime Minister has indicated that he proposes to invite the four party leaders to a meeting with himself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that is to concentrate upon the security situation. It is important, and, I hope, a reassurance and at least a partial answer to the noble Lord's question, that that is in the context that the four main constitutional party leaders agreed a little while ago, when it was apparent that the talks were not going to proceed, that they would, nonetheless wish to meet the Government to consider matters of common interest, in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord can assume that that will be an important and, I hope, fruitful meeting.
4.32 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the recent trial, it is clear that the UDA is engaged in systematic assassination? Will he consider making that organisation illegal, like the IRA?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the question of proscription is always kept under review.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, as one who has spent most of his political life in Northern Ireland, I am only too well aware of the terrible heartbreak and sorrow now prevalent in that community and of the great distress and despair that exists at the apparent unworkability of any political action taken recently. I am glad to hear the positive mention that the Prime Minister is calling together the four constitutional party leaders to talk

363
about security. That is all that we can expect. I do not believe that there is the remotest hope of any political talks taking place in advance of the general election.
Security is by far the most important issue facing the people of Northern Ireland today. Is it possible for those four constitutional leaders, after they have had talks, to come out into the open and to call upon their constituents to give total and absolute support to the security forces, and to cut away all the ambivalence and ambiguity that we sometimes hear in their statements in relation to the security forces? Is it possible for the leaders of the four main Churches in Northern Ireland to call upon their people —the people who attend their churches—again, unambiguously, to (this is an awful word in the Irish political vocabulary) "inform" upon those people whom they suspect of being engaged in violence? The Minister stated that only a tiny minority of people support the violence. It is that tiny minority in the Catholic community and in the Loyalist Protestant community which is giving succour, support and protection to the men who are carrying out the murders. It is not a security problem only for the police, the UDR and the Army; it is up to the people who are giving the protection to inform upon those who they believe are carrying out acts of violence. We need the co-operation and an unambiguous statement from the four Church leaders and the four constitutional party leaders. If we could have those statements, I believe that they would go some way to show the honesty and integrity of those involved.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, no one could ask that question with more justification than the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. He has been an example to all by the brave and open way in which he has expressed himself today, and expressed himself and conducted himself when he was a representative for Northern Ireland in another place. He will be aware that there have been unequivocal statements of support for the security forces and for law and order from leading churchmen and the leaders of political parties in the past few days. I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friends what the noble Lord has said. I hope that there will be others also who will see what the noble Lord has said in your Lordships' House.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as one who belongs to a family with long connections with the Province, which none of us has ever forgotten, I join others in expressing the grief and indignation with which we have heard of the recent outrages. There is one point that I wanted to put to my noble friend. I was greatly heartened by one phrase in the Statement, and that was his reference to the rule of law. There are many people who, understandably and with every possible moral justification, demand the suspension of the rule of law. I was very much encouraged to hear my noble friend reassert his belief in it, because if, for instance, we were to consider reintroducing internment, which remains on the statute book as a possibility, we should remember that it has a bad track record in producing results.
364
Internment involves the suspension of the rule of law. It involves the abolition, for the time being in a limited number of cases, of the due process of law; of the burden of proof; and of the work of the courts. It has not succeeded in the past. Whenever it has been introduced, it has had to be abolished within a measurable time. I was greatly heartened, in consequence, by what my noble friend said about the rule of law. I hope that we shall not go down that path unless necessity drives us to it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for what he said. The principle underlying our security policy is the absolute determination to bring terrorism to an end within the rule of law. I agree with him that that principle cannot be set aside. He referred to executive detention or internment. That option remains on the statute book, but it would be a very serious step indeed.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs; My Lords, like other noble Lords I should like to express my great sorrow at the sectarian killings that have taken place in recent days in Northern Ireland. I wish to give my heartfelt sympathy to the relatives and families of those who have been killed.
Against the tragic background of the Minister's Statement today, I welcome the news he gave that the Prime Minister has called together the leaders of the four constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that a great anxiety to the people of Northern Ireland, and to us all, must be that the initiative has been seized by the men of violence and that they retain it? Therefore, the Government must welcome any kind of replacement of that initiative which has been seized by the gunmen.
Does the Minister agree that it would be important in the talks for matters of common concern to be placed before the four leaders? It is always the case that when constitutional issues are placed before them there cannot be agreement. Would it not be better, therefore, to keep the talks to matters of security, common interest, social issues and other issues of direct concern to them and not to risk the breakdown of the talks and the invaluable initiative that has been taken before they get anywhere?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, for the sympathy which she expressed to those who have recently been bereaved. She asked me once again about the talks which were announced in the Statement. She will forgive me if I say that I cannot anticipate the agenda except that the Statement clearly proposes that the talks will concentrate on the issue of security. To the people of Northern Ireland that matter is at the top of their agenda. I join the noble Baroness in the hope that we shall find that the meeting will be a fruitful opportunity for leadership both from Downing Street and within Northern Ireland.

Charities Bill [H.L.]
4.42 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Legal responsibilities of Charity Trustees
After section 4 of the 1960 Act there shall be inserted—
"Legal responsibilities of Charity Trustees.
—(1) The Charity Commissioners shall prescribe a form to be signed and witnessed by all charity trustees on acceptance of the office of trustee.
(2) Such a form shall refer to the legal responsibilities of charity trustees, the method of appointment, retirement and removal of charity trustees applicable to that charity.
(3) The signed form shall be held by the charity concerned and a copy shall be held by the trustee concerned." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to apologise to my noble friend the Minister and to the House for putting down a new amendment on Report instead of at an earlier stage. The reason is that during the Committee stage I attended a meeting of the trustees of a charity of which I am a trustee. During the meeting various events took place which I shall not go into except to say that we were informed by the director of the charity that it had changed to become a company limited by guarantee.
Two points arose from that change. First, it was clear that a number of trustees in this country accept their position without knowing exactly what are their duties. I happen to have been fortunate in the past in having a brother who is a solicitor. When I became a trustee, he told me exactly what were my duties. However, I have come across many trustees who have no idea of their duties. Some believe that they are presidents and some patrons.
Recently I said to one person, "You know, you will be in trouble with that trust and, if you are, you will have to sell your house in order to meet the costs". I thought that person was about to faint, obviously having no idea of the financial responsibilities of a director.
By the same token, some directors of trusts have no clear idea of the duties of trustees. For example, I came across one trust where the director had not informed the trustees of them. Speaking for myself, I found that the Charity Commission had brought out an extremely good book on the duties of trustees. I had been a trustee for many years and had never seen it. Until a short time ago I did not know that it existed. Therefore, it seems to me important that trustees should know their duties and be clear about them. Equally, directors and secretaries of trusts should know them.
The amendment suggests that a simple form should be drawn up on the duties of a trustee. It should refer to the fuller book published by the Charity Commissioners and trustees should have to sign the form, perhaps in front of witnesses. The form should be in duplicate and kept by the trust as well as those who are trustees.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations held a conference of trustees and the point was put to them. I understand that most of them considered this a wise suggestion to make to your Lordships and to the Minister. Two people said that they would not sign anything. However, whether or not people sign, they are still liable and the lack of signature does not make any difference, so the argument is not valid.
My noble friend may say that the drafting is not as good as it might be, but I believe that the intention is good because many trustees do not know their duties. Therefore, I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, although with her customary eloquence she does not leave one much more to say.
A standard form such as she suggests implies generally accepted conditions and makes them more widely known than they are. We know that a great deal of the information is available, I suppose from the nearest branch of a public library. However, as the noble Baroness said, when most people accept the post of trustee they are not aware, and there is no wide public knowledge, of the depth of the responsibilities that trusteeship now requires. To be presented with such a form would bring one face to face with those responsibilities. Formal confrontation with them has a brisk and salutary effect just as when one is obliged to take an oath, sign a lease or even sign a cheque. People have eyeball confrontation with their responsibilities and there is no getting away from them. A document of this kind could be legally enforced, if necessary, to show that the person concerned had knowledge of the responsibilities undertaken.
Further, it would be an effective document of record, even as it stands. Some improvements may be possible in the drafting, but, as I said at Committee stage and it bears repetition, the law knows no higher status than that of trustee. That remark was made to me when I was much younger by an ancient lawyer in the city of York when I first took on a trusteeship. At that point he proceeded to read me the Riot Act about my responsibilities. That would be good for all of us. To have such a document would be effective in reminding one all the time that that information was on record.
There is a tiny trust in mid-Wales of which I became a trustee when I took up another office within the University of Wales. The post of trustee was an ex officio post. I was not aware that I had become a trustee until about 14 months after I had taken up the office which carried the trusteeship with it. As it happened, the post of trustee consisted of disbursing tuppence ha'penny a year to people who did, or did not, attend Sunday schools in four villages in the middle of Cardiganshire. Had I been negligent in my duties, I do not believe enormous suffering would have occurred. However, in such a case I would certainly have welcomed being presented, on becoming a trustee, with a document to record that I at that time had undertaken a trusteeship. Such a document would have recorded the facts. So far as I can see, nothing in

367
the amendment of the noble Baroness would impose any great bureaucratic burden on anyone. I hope the amendment commends itself to the Government.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I, too, wish to support the amendment. I have been involved with charities for a long time. I am ashamed to say that I was a trustee of two charities before I suddenly realised—perhaps as a result of hearing someone speak in this House—the enormity of the task I had undertaken. Charities now seem able to become limited companies and they do not appear to be aware—unless they are limited by guarantee—that their trustees face such large responsibilities. As a movement, charities do not always inform the innocents that they try to rope in to help them of the responsibilities they face. It is important that a sound document should be provided to inform people of their responsibilities. This is a good amendment and I am sure the Government will accept it.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I also support the spirit of this amendment. In the case of a private trust there will always be identified beneficiaries. A person who accepts the office of trustee of a private trust will appreciate his responsibilities towards those beneficiaries. There will probably be a family solicitor in the background who can explain the duties of the new trustee if the latter is unaware of those duties. However, the position is different in the case of a charitable trust. There will be no identified beneficiaries. The new trustee may well not appreciate why he is there and what he is meant to do. There may well be no solicitor in the background.
In the case of a local charitable trust, the position of trustee may well have devolved on the new trustee ex officio and he will be even less likely to appreciate his responsibilities. I believe something along the lines of this amendment is worth consideration.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. I have spent a great deal of my life as a trustee both of large public trusts, such as the Carnegie UK Trust, and also of private trusts. I am absolutely certain that the provision we are discussing is important and should be treated with the greatest possible respect. The amendment would be a successful addition to the Bill. I hope the noble Earl will accept it.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I, too, wish briefly to support this amendment. Like many other noble Lords I have been a trustee of all kinds of bodies, although I believe they have mostly faded out now. The matter I am never quite sure about that which the noble Baroness referred to earlier; that is, the position of a company limited by guarantee. I have always assumed that if one is a member of an executive committee of a company limited by guarantee and that company goes bust, one's maximum liability is £1. The usual limit of a company limited by guarantee is £1. There are clearly fraudulent practices which would enable people to get round this position and the
368
position needs to be clarified as it is not at all clear at present. I do not know where we stand and therefore I certainly support the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I am a trustee of a number of charities. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the amendment, but I believe the drafting could be widened a little. I should add that one of the responsibilities of those who are appointed as trustees should be a requirement to attend trustees' meetings. Sometimes people take on the post of a trustee because they feel it is an important function—it is an important function in society—but they then find they have other meetings to attend or they are not particularly interested in being a trustee. Nevertheless, they still face certain responsibilities as trustees. Many trustees that I know of do not realise the responsibilities they have taken on as regards administering funds that have been collected by the charities concerned. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree to insert this amendment into the Bill.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, speaking as a solicitor I must say I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment because from time to time trustees ask me what their duties are. This is a real problem and the amendment tries to meet it. However, I have a number of questions which I hope my noble friend the Minister will address. I should like to know how this provision would work in practice. There are, of course, ex officio trustees who may hardly even know when they have become become trustees. When new trustees are appointed to a small charity, will that charity remember to give the trustees the printed form? I should like to encourage the Charity Commission to provide this form. I have prepared a form which I distribute to trustees when they ask me about their duties but an officially prepared form from the Charity Commission would be a great support to trustees. However, I am not sure the amendment is the right way to deal with this matter.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the speech of my noble friend Lord Brentford was short but nevertheless it encapsulated almost every relevant point of the matter we are discussing. All of your Lordships are concerned that trustees should be aware of what they are taking on. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said she has become a trustee on a number of occasions without realising what exactly she was taking on. I believe many people accept these positions of great responsibility without realising what they are taking on. I sympathise greatly with my noble friend Lady Faithfull who, through her amendment, is trying to sort out this matter.
Upon registration of a charity the Commissioners send to the trustees a comprehensive information pack about their duties and responsibilities. This also contains literature about other sources of advice for trustees and about providers of training for trustees. One recommendation of the NCVO report, Effectiveness in the Voluntary Sector, was that every new trustee should read a copy of the Commissioners' booklet entitled Responsibilities of Charity Trustees.

369
My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that it is a good booklet. She expressed an anxiety, repeated by my noble friend Lord Brentford, when she said that new trustees are not automatically given a copy of the booklet. I believe it would be difficult to make that a legal requirement. However, trustees could ask for a copy of the booklet. Charities should make it their duty to give new trustees a copy of the booklet. Copies can he obtained from the Charity Commission.
The difficulty with the amendment of my noble friend is that it seeks to impose a duty without any sanction for non-compliance. My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to a person who said he would refuse to sign a form. My noble friend told him it did not matter if he did not sign the form. However, we must ask ourselves what would happen if a new duty were imposed without any sanction for noncompliance. What is the point of placing an obligation on someone to sign a form if there is no sanction for not signing that form? Even if the form was signed it would not make any difference to the legal position of a trustee, so I find it difficult to advise your Lordships to accept the amendment, although I am deeply concerned that the spirit which lies behind it should be pursued.
I think the best way would be for us to get trustees to adopt the practice by encouraging them as opposed to compelling them. It is clearly in their own interests and those of the charity that they quickly become knowledgeable about what it is that they are taking on. It may be that a person who is not keen to learn about his duties and responsibilities should not be appointed to that position in the first place.
I reiterate my support for my noble friend's intention, which is most laudable, in tabling the amendment. However, for the reasons that I have given, I do not consider it would be suitable to put it into the Bill.
The National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Commission have set up a working party which will examine the question of training and support for trustees. We shall have to wait to see what its findings are, but I would hope that we would be able to support the implementation of its recommendations. That approach is the one most likely to lead to the proper understanding by trustees of their responsibilities rather than the amendment of my noble friend.
5 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Earl said that it was difficult to make it a legal requirement, but he does not appear to have produced any great backing for that statement. Perhaps he could explain to us in rather more detail why it is impossible and why a person cannot just legally fail to become a trustee.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, some charities change their trustees fairly frequently. I suggest that it would be difficult to impose a duty on the Charity Commissioners to prescribe a form to all new trustees because the Charity Commissioners do not know at each time when all the trustees are going to be
370
changed. As I have said, what would be the position of a person who is given the form but who refused to sign it? Under the amendment that would be part and parcel of a trustee's obligation.
I can only come back to what I said in the first place. It is difficult to make this a legal requirement either upon the Charity Commission or upon the new trustees. This is something which charities themselves ought to take into account.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I fully appreciate what my noble friend the Minister has said, but it is somewhat nebulous. It might be right if everybody did what he said that they should do, but they do not. Up and down the country, particularly in view of the enormous number of small charities that have been set up recently—for instance, for the Romanian children—many people have taken on trusteeships. How can the gap be bridged? How can the trustees be informed by the Charity Commission or the people setting up the trust, who do not even know that such books exist on the duties of trustees? I understand the point that my noble friend the Minister is making, but I have to say that it is not really valid. There is no way of bridging the gap without something of the kind proposed in the amendment.
I apologise sincerely for having raised this matter at a late stage of the Bill. I shall withdraw the amendment, discuss the matter with my noble friend the Minister and then return to it at the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Registered charity's status to appear on official publications etc.]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 12, after ("characters") insert ("and in the case of paragraph (a) of this subsection shall require to be stated also the names of the trustees of the charity").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is complementary to the matter we have just been discussing. It is time that trustees taking on such responsibilities should be nailed down. There is too casual an approach to people to be trustees. I would have supported the amendment of the noble Baroness who has just spoken, but we are all under pressure tonight to make progress on the Bill.
My amendment is to reinforce the provisions of the Bill. Noble Lords will see that Clause 3 states:
"Where a charity is a registered charity, the fact that it is a registered charity shall be stated in English in legible characters—
(a) in all notices, advertisements and other documents issued by or on behalf of the charity and soliciting money".
So these documents are money documents, solicitation documents. Then there are conditions about the definition of the charity to appear on other bills of financial importance.
My amendment proposes that all notices, advertisements and other documents issued on behalf of the charity and appealing for money shall contain the

371
names of the trustees; not their addresses; not limited to three but all of them, whether there are more or less than three.
This is a desirable attempt to bring the faceless trustees out of their obscurity and let people see who they are. This is of great importance in connection with charities which are making enormous effects in fund raising, which are endeavouring, by post and other means—by taking full-page advertisements in The Times, for example—to get financial support. Where they are soliciting money, the names of the trustees should appear in the advertisement or notice.
Your Lordships will have received many envelopes containing charitable appeals. I save them up every year, and they amount to a very large number, especially at Christmas. Who are they from? There is the name of the charity—which will now have to make clear that it is a charity, which the law does not require it to do at present. We know that that will carry certain obligations, but who is running the show? Who are they? We find on these appeals "Director of Fund Raising", "Finance Director", "Appeals Controller" and other members of the professional staff of the charity.
This is an industry and we might as well begin to call it an industry, just as the building society movement volunteered to call itself an industry. They now employ professionals in ever-growing numbers on ever-rising salaries because they are having to compete with commercial standards of pay for recruitment to positions of great importance in fund raising and administration. I shall not question any charity that might have to pay more money to get professional people than it would wish.
But that is not enough. We want to know who are the trustees who are running the show and who accept responsibility for it. If they want to communicate with us, let them do so and disclose themselves. I resent having appeals addressed to me by a bureaucrat in a charity suggesting that he has some special claim upon my emotional responses, my generosity and vulnerability. We are all fools when it comes to generosity, and one of the great features of our society is that we often feel happy to indulge in it.
This is an industry peculiar to Britain. We are one of the few countries in the world which have a charity industry. It began with Henry VIII when he dissolved the monasteries. Prior to that time, charity—which truly means the relief of poverty; it does not mean some of the responsibilities that charities are undertaking under the wider interpretation of the Charity Acts at the present time—was undertaken by the churches. The relief of the poor moved from the churches to charities and that is the origin of our charitable movement. It has grown ever since. We should now decide that it is a growing element in public affairs and that some stricter conditions should be applied when appeals for money are made to the public.
Some people in the charitable world have already suggested that there ought to be a charity tax; that we should get rid of the appeals and all the paper that passes through the post and so on and leave it to a
372
charity tax. I regard that as complete nonsense. However, it is clear how people's minds are moving. We have certainly got to the point where people are asked to respond more freely to charitable appeals by having money taken out of their pay packets rather than taking it out of their pockets. What they never see they never miss—that is the clue to pay-as-you-earn, which is the biggest pick-pocket industry in the world.
In those circumstances we want to know who has his hands in our pockets. For that reason the trustees should come clean and let us know their names. They may have some significance; we may know who they are; we may give greater credence to the authority of their appeal if we know who they are; or we may find names that we do not know at all. However, I see every reason why trustees, in whose names appeals for money are being made, should be named. Directors of finance, fund-raisers and bureaucrats can play their part, but they are not the people responsible.
I sincerely hope that this amendment will be accepted. I emphasise in conclusion that it relates solely to advertisements and other documents issued on behalf of the charity and soliciting money—wholly to charitable appeals which are issued to the public soliciting money. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have some doubt about the wisdom of the amendment. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and sympathise with much of what he said. However, the practical problems involved in implementing an amendment of this kind are substantial.
The term "other documents" could certainly include any letter sent out asking for donations to a charity. I happen to be a trustee of a charity which probably has a turnover of two trustees a year. This amendment would mean that the stationery would have to be reprinted twice a year. One has to ask whether costs of that kind imposed on charities would be of any substantial public benefit. I am doubtful whether that would be so.
I could understand the proposition that the names of some trustees should appear; but it seems to me wrong, for the reasons I have indicated, that it should apply to all trustees. I am therefore very reluctant to agree to the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, though I have much sympathy with the concern that lies behind the amendment. I should like to take the argument one step further. I recently had the privilege of being invited to join the council of a great charity and follow the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, as a member of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund board. It has hundreds of local branches all over the country which are constantly —and successfully—appealing for the huge sums which keep cancer research going. I am also on the council of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. It has 600 or 700 local associations, all of which make appeals to raise money for guide dogs for the blind.

373
The consequences of passing the amendment would be that every time a new member of the council were appointed to the parent body, as it were, all the stationery, together with the appeal literature and all the documents with which local appeals are conducted, would have to be reprinted. The cost would be astronomical. It would make it very difficult for those bodies to replace a trustee who died or one who reached the distinguished age at which the rules of the charity may require him to stand down.
Quite honestly, although I understand the noble Lord's point, the large national charities—they are sometimes called the Big 10—which get together to consider their interests and so on, would be absolutely horrified if they found the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the Bill.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should declare an interest in this Bill as I work for a charity. I earn my living that way. I am opposed to the amendment. A large number of very small charities design documents intended to last for many years. They would incur excessive costs in reprinting those documents every time that a trustee changed. A number of other charities have many autonomous branches, each of which may have its own trustees. When a trustee of any branch changed, the documentation for that branch would have to be reprinted. It would put up the costs considerably.
I appreciate and quite understand the need for members of the public to be able to find out who are the trustees. That can quite simply be done by writing to the charity concerned which, as I understand it, would have a duty to disclose the names of the trustees but not necessarily their addresses.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, we on this side of the Committee entirely understand and support the spirit of the amendment which, as I understand it, is that trustees should not only be responsible but be seen to be responsible and be seen by members of the public to be readily identifiable. However, we regret that we cannot support it, for the reasons which have already been given. It is obviously undesirable to create unnecessary or burdensome paperwork and to increase costs, particularly where many small charities are concerned. Difficulties are bound to arise when there are changes in the trustees. The documents which the amendment requires to carry the information would effectively relate to virtually all appeal documents of whatever kind. One can see the difficulties that would arise if the amendment were to be accepted.
As we heard in relation to earlier amendments, the position is that any member of the public can now discover the names of trustees from the register and have a means of access to it as soon as the charity is registered. Provided that members of the public are aware of that facility, it seems to us that it is not necessary to require charities to go to the expense that this amendment would involve.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may offer a word of sympathy to my noble friend. We appreciate his reference to major
374
industries. It is a little disturbing to find, on going into what is supposed to be a charity—I have been working voluntarily all my life—that the fund-raiser is collecting £40,000 a year. If that money had gone to the charity to start with, it would have been a lot of help.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord said that the trustees should be nailed down. That gave me a rather formidable feeling. I have run charities and had to persuade people to be trustees, explaining to them exactly what is involved. I know that one would never get them if they thought that their names would be emblazoned on the notepaper because lots of other people would also want to have them. I have found a good trick. I say that I am willing to be a patron. So far as I understand, a patron has no responsibility except for his name to adorn notepaper. Perhaps I should not say that in front of the Government who may then bring an amendment to include patrons in the Charities Bill.
Perhaps I may extend a word of sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. We understand what he seeks to achieve, hut do not believe that the amendment meets the case.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. We all understand what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, seeks to achieve. However, for reasons explained eloquently by other noble Lords I do not believe that the amendment is suitable.
Clause 3 already requires registered charities to state that they are registered charities. They have to do that on a number of documents including, but extending wider than, fund-raising notices and advertisements. The reason is to make it clear to anyone reading one of those documents that the organisation which issued it is a charity and one which is on the commissioner's register. The reader will then be aware that he or she can find out much more about the charity by consulting the register.
One of the documents which will be open to public inspection on the register will be the annual report which has to be prepared by trustees. As I explained on an earlier amendment, it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that the regulations which he will make prescribing the contents of the annual report will require the report to list the names of the charity trustees. A person presented with a notice or advertisement soliciting funds for a charity will therefore have a clear route to the names of the trustees even if they are not immediately before him in black and white.
For those reasons I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. It could also be considerably troublesome to a number of charities. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said, a few charities have a large number of trustees. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, is present. He is a distinguished chairman of the National Trust. My understanding is that it has 52 trustees. Their names would have to be printed on all notices, advertisements and all other documents relating to the National Trust. One can imagine the problems that that would create.
A more widespread objection was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble

375
friend Lord Jenkin. Many charities have arrangements which require at least one or all of the trustees to stand down each year. Where the trustee body changed frequently, the documents which bore their names would also have frequently to be altered to avoid commission of the offence under subsection (3) of the new Section 4A. That would obviously be inconvenient and time consuming. As many noble Lords said, it would be costly.
While we all understand the reasons for the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will understand that it would be better not to put the provision on the face of the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, we have spent one half hour on a Statement in the middle of a debate which, we have had impressed on us, is urgently desired to be completed today. Therefore we must do our best.
The objections that have been raised have been grossly exaggerated. There are not that number of trustees throughout the country in many charities. However, I shall not argue with those who are trustees or who would not wish to receive the publicity that publication of their names might entail. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment because I have a more important amendment to debate later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 27, after ("charity") insert ("having a gross income in its previous financial year which exceeds £25,000").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have spoken today, I begin by saying that I appreciate all that the Minister and his officials have done to meet a variety of points that we raised in Committee. I do not wish to waste time as we work through the shoals of amendments later by leaping up each time to say thank you. Perhaps this may be taken as a general expression of appreciation.
I have tried to limit the amendments that I put down at this stage in the hope of shortening the proceedings. With some reluctance I decided not to pursue the point that I raised on the clause in Committee about which I remain a little unhappy. However, I must raise one point. It is the subject of the present amendment, and relates to the creation of criminal offences.
It is one thing for a big charity with paid professional staff to be put under certain obligations. I go along with anything that tells against large-scale fraud. But it is quite another to impose these criminal sanctions on small charities. Let us take an example. If I am a trustee of a small charity which decides to give £50 to help someone to buy some special bedding, and the well meaning but not very efficient lady who has been dragooned into serving as treasurer forgets to put the name and number of the charity on the cheque, then apparently I am guilty of a criminal offence. It seems to me that the burden of proof is reversed and that to establish my innocence I have to prove that I took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. We have an amendment on that point later.
At Committee stage, the Government argued that it was perfectly all right because the risk of prosecution was minimal since no prosecution under the Bill could take place without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, to my mind that makes it rather worse. I have spent quite a lot of my career trying to persuade other departments not to use the criminal law for propaganda purposes. Yet we risk creating an offence, but say, "It is quite all right because people will not be prosecuted". It seems to me much better to except small charities from those onerous provisions and to take £25,000 as the dividing line which the Government propose in another context.
It is not as though small charities would then be acting in a void if there were complaints that they were not carrying out the requirements of the section. They would still remain subject to the discipline of the Charity Commission.
One special problem has arisen in relation to small charities. Some of them put their money into building societies in the hope of obtaining a slightly better rate of interest than the banks will pay. If they make a payment, the building society does not issue a cheque book but itself makes out the cheque and sends it to the happy recipient. I wish to have it on the record that charities which follow that procedure are not regarded as being in breach of the requirement that cheques purporting to be signed on behalf of the charity carry all those requirements.
I believe that the clause makes heavy weather of the procedure for small charities. It could well act as one further discouragement to anyone contemplating becoming a trustee. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and in particular to support him in this amendment about which we argued in Committee. I was encouraged by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said earlier; that trustees should be encouraged and not compelled. That appears to be relevant in relation to this amendment.
There will be a considerable burden on small charities to understand the Bill, let alone to comply with some of its detailed requirements. In doing so they should be subjected to advice and encouragement by the Charity Commissioners rather than to the full force of the criminal law. It would be a considerable burden on the criminal justice system, which already is grossly overburdened, to pursue many minor errors of failure to include all the details on the various paperwork of charities.
The level at which one might consider a charity to be small is arguable. However, it is essential to exclude small charities from the intolerable burdens of bureaucracy. Subjecting trustees to criminal proceedings in such circumstances is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not appropriate and it would act as a deterrent. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am not totally happy with the wording of the Bill as presently drafted. Noble Lords may have the option of choosing the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, or Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am more attracted to those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. To my way of thinking, £24,000 is a substantial income for a charity. The responsibility for making a trustee privy to default is more relevant. Therefore, I prefer to see this amendment withdrawn and the following two amendments accepted.
Lord Congleton: My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendment. I had not intended to speak, but this afternoon a piece of paper slipped out of the rest of my papers. Written on it was a quotation which I noted a few weeks ago. It is by Edmund Burke and reads:
"to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle … [indeed the germ] of public affections".
The little platoon to which I am pleased to belong is a small village community in south Wiltshire where I have lived for 32 years. My experience has been of small and medium-sized charities in that county and in the whole region.
Last week I was invited to a seminar in a small village in Wiltshire. Representatives of local voluntary associations and charities active in the county had also been invited. I arrived late expecting to find between 15 and 20 people in a small room around a table. I knew that we were to hear expert advisers. To my astonishment—I should have known better—60 people were in a room clearly designed to hold only 40. I was told that 25 people had been turned away. Most of those people were concerned with small charities in the county. Others were concerned with larger charities operating in the county, but they were interested in the provisions of the Bill. We heard from them and they heard from us.
On returning home, I reflected upon what I had heard and seen at that seminar in the middle of Wiltshire. I was struck, first, by the enormous number of people present. They were interested in the provisions of the Bill which will affect them if it becomes an Act. Secondly, I was struck by the fact that I am fortunate to be a citizen of a nation in which so many people are prepared to go about doing good things on behalf of their fellow human beings with no hope of reward or personal gain. In my view, such people are to be encouraged and supported in that.
There was last week in that room in the middle of Wiltshire evidence of immense good will. When reading the amendment, I reflected that it was directed to the smaller charities. One of the messages that the meeting appeared to be throwing up was, "Please, can we have fewer bureaucratic requirements thrown at us? Please, can we have less red tape? Please, can we be absolved from some of the more onerous responsibilities which the Bill appears to be throwing in our direction as smaller charities?".
I am happy to support the amendment. I think of the little army made up of little platoons in that room in Wiltshire. It was a volunteer army, which I am told is the best kind. Its members had no hope of personal
378
reward and were not seeking personal gain. I repeat that in my view such people should be encouraged and supported in their good deeds and I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I wish to support the principle of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. However, I am worried about one provision in the amendment; I too believe that £25,000 is too high and I should like to see a lower figure. Many of the charities in Wiltshire about which we have heard will probably have an income of less than £10,000 rather than up to £25,000. Therefore, I believe that the principle of the amendment is right but that the figure is too high.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I wish to comment on what constitutes a small charity. I am chairman of the Royal Caledonian Ball which holds one ball each year. We take about £50,000 in ticket sales. A little more than half that amount pays for the expenses of the ball. Therefore we raise approximately £20,000 for the Royal Caledonian schools, the Queen Victoria schools in Dunblane and a few other charities. It is a one-off event and we have one part-time secretary who is paid a tiny honorarium. The services of other people are given voluntarily. I consider that to be a small charity but the amount of money handled briefly is fairly large.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, if the Minister were to say that the Government would prefer a different figure, that would be acceptable to many noble Lords. However, I agree with the central proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I believe that it is unnecessary to use the criminal law or the threat of it against trustees of small charities. We can argue about the precise figure, but the principle of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was entirely right. As he correctly said, there is the discipline of the Charity Commission as a fall-back position. However, I do not regard as an answer the suggestion that no proceedings will be commenced without the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I hope that the Minister will be open minded. If he objects to the figure of £25,000 but is prepared to substitute another figure, many of us would find that acceptable.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for the kind remarks with which he prefaced his address on the amendment. I greatly appreciate them. The purpose of the new Section 4A, which will be inserted in the Charities Act 1960 by Clause 3, is to alert people who see or handle any of the documents referred to—especially those who are being asked to give money to the charity—that the documents are produced by a body which is a registered charity. Where the statement appears it will immediately inform people that details about the body can be found in the central register of charities. That is the whole ethos behind the provision. It is just as important that that fact should be made known in the case of a small charity as in the case of a large charity.

379
My noble friend Lord Brentford said that he was worried about the figure of £25,000, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. My noble friend Lord Mottistone said that in Wiltshire there are many small charities. I do not know whether there are many small or large charities in Wiltshire, Hampshire or anywhere else. However, I can tell my noble friend Lord Brentford that if Amendment No. 6 were accepted, 76 per cent. of charities would be excluded from the requirement to state that they were registered charities. That is far too high a proportion. I do not believe that the requirements of the clause will be unduly onerous or costly. Sufficient time will be given before the clause is brought into force for existing stocks of various documents to be exhausted and new ones bearing the required statement to be ordered. Many charities already put that statement on most of their documents.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wonder whether there is a misunderstanding. I do not suggest that those charities should be exempt from the ethos of the clause and the requirements about giving information. I am concerned as to whether there should be the backing of criminal sanctions for the small tiddlers.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that. Of course, when a requirement is put into a Bill, it carries some sanction. The noble Lords, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Harris of Greenwich, dismissed the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions will be involved before any prosecution is entertained. That is to ensure that no prosecution is brought frivolously or that prosecutions are brought willy-nilly.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that he has spent much of his time trying not to put into Acts of Parliament laws which cannot be enforced. I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, that that is precisely what his amendment will achieve because it merely exempts the trustee of a charity from prosecution. It is unsatisfactory to have a duty which cannot be enforced.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred to building society cheques. If those cheques are made out by the building society, they are not issued by the charity and will not have to carry the charity's name. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord on that point.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, Section 4A(1)(a) states:
"in all notices, advertisements and other documents issued by or on behalf of the charity".
Surely a building society cheque would be issued on behalf of the charity.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that that is so because it will be issued on behalf of the building society. That is from where it emanates.
I return to the basic point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I realise the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen, and other noble Lords. If there are to be registered charities, then the registration should apply equally across the board whether the charities are large or small. However,
380
your Lordships have expressed anxiety on this matter and I am prepared to look at it again. I cannot give an undertaking that I shall reach the conclusion which some of your Lordships would like me to reach but I shall consider the matter.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am obliged for that answer. Perhaps I may just dispose of the building society Perhaps I may just dispose of the building society point. I was concerned as to whether that would be covered by paragraph (b) rather than paragraph (a). I am content to accept the assurance given by the noble Earl which is now on the record. Therefore, that point is disposed of.
As regards the reference to the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend, it seems to me that they deal with a somewhat different point. I rather sympathise with the amendment concerned with reversing the burden of proof, but those amendments do not meet the point which I have been trying to meet with this amendment.
I take the point that £25,000 may be too high and may exempt too many charities. However, I am left, with the whole of my Home Office upbringing, feeling extremely uneasy about creating a criminal offence but saying in the same breath that care is being taken that no one will be prosecuted in the area which we are discussing. Perhaps the Government will think again about this. I shall think about it again and we may have further discussions before the next stage of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may try to ease the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. If one exceeds the speed limit, one is guilty of a criminal offence. However, it is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether or not to proceed on such a matter. Not everyone who exceeds the speed limit is prosecuted. The purpose of inviting the Director of Public Prosecutions to take account of such matters is to ensure that only those deserving of prosecution will be prosecuted.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I shall refrain from inflicting upon the House a lecture on speed limits. That is a subject on which one could speak eloquently. I take the point that there is no requirement in the road traffic Acts that prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit can be launched only by authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
However, I remind the House that there is another sanction of obligation on the Charity Commission so that we are not leaving this matter in a void. However, there is no point in pursuing this issue further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 30, after second ("charity") insert ("who has been responsible for or privy to such act or default").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 11, although Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 fall if Amendment No.

381
9 is accepted. The same point arises also on Amendment No. 93A and so on in Clause 60, although they have not been grouped together.
I tabled this amendment in Committee and my first duty is to apologise to the Committee that I was not there to move this and other amendments. The reason is purely human frailty. I was concerned in two other Bills and I did not believe that I could manage parliamentary proceedings from 10 o'clock in the morning until 11.30 at night. However, I am grateful to those who moved the amendments which they thought should be discussed in Committee. In this case, the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I am grateful also to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who replied on that occasion on behalf of the Government. To know the views expressed makes my task very much easier.
This clause raises fairly fundamental constitutional principles and profound questions which go to the root of our system of criminal justice, as has already been indicated by my noble friend Lord Allen and the noble Viscount who spoke on that amendment.
Indeed, I pray in aid a great deal that has been said on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, indicated that he would consider further the amendment which has just been withdrawn but, in so far as he did not accept it, it reinforces the argument for the amendments to which I am speaking.
The two fundamental objections to the clause are first, that subsection (3) establishes guilt by association; and, secondly, subsection (5) reverses the normal onus of proof, as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Allen and the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
With regard to subsection (3) the amendment causes the Bill, from line 30, to read,
"every charity trustee of the charity who has been responsible for or privy to such act or default shall be guilty of an offence".
Subsection (4)—the one reversing the onus of proof—is then unnecessary and the onus, by subsection (3), is restored to its normal place; namely, the prosecution. The other two amendments are drafting consequentials on the ones that I have mentioned and I shall not go into them.
When the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, replied he made three points which were also raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in regard to the last amendment. The first is the enforcement of the new duties imposed on trustees. I profoundly agree with that but it by no means follows, as was pointed out by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the criminal law should be invoked to enforce those duties. The second argument concerned how to prove responsibility and privity; the third was to rely on subsection (4) as a means of defence.
Perhaps I may begin with the first objection; namely, imposing guilt by association. That was not covered on the last amendment. As your Lordships know well, a crime in this country is not committed merely by failure to carry out the duty imposed by law. Something additional is necessary and that is a mental element. Most frequently it is the element of intention
382
but sometimes, alternatively, it is recklessness or serious negligence, or—and this is most relevant here—the definition of a crime may often contain the word "knowingly". It is because subsection (3) obviates all those mental elements, and specifically "knowingly", that it is so objectionable.
It is true that there are certain crimes which are sometimes called crimes of absolute liability where no mental element is required. A good example is the offence of selling liquor to someone under age. It is not only the barman with knowledge who is responsible, but also the owner of the public house. In essence the law says, "This is a serious social evil. You receive the profit from the bar; it is your business to see that no offence is committed. We will not accept the answer that somebody else did it without your knowledge". Obviously that fundamentally differs from this situation. Although we all want to see a duty imposed on the trustees, nobody would say that it is a serious social evil demanding strict liability nor, most importantly, do trustees receive any profit which may charge them with liability.
The second objection was that it would be difficult to prove responsibility or privity. I do not know why it would be more difficult here than in many other cases where responsibility is placed on a person charged with an offence. The instance of the criminal law that occurs to me to be most near this one occurs under the Merchant Shipping Act. It is an offence for a ship owner to allow his ship to put to sea in an unseaworthy condition, knowingly or with responsibility and certainly with privity. It has been laid down that privity in that case means either knowledge or deliberately shutting one's eyes to what is there to be seen—in another branch of the law it is called connivance. With all respect, therefore, I cannot accept that there would be any real difficulty in proving privity in that sense, or responsibility.
Subsection (4) concerns the onus of proof, and the ground was well covered on the last amendment. For good reason it is only rarely reversed in our law. It is reversed when it is a serious matter and peculiarly within the knowledge of the person charged with the offence, when in fact the circumstances raised are presumption of guilt. A common example is the charge of living on immoral earnings. Where a man is charged with that offence it is sufficient to prove that he was living with a prostitute. It is then for him to explain that he was not living on her immoral earnings.
Perhaps another case worthy of mention and which shows that the present case is in contradistinction is when a person is found in possession of stolen goods. It is then for him to explain that they were acquired innocently. The fact raises the presumption. That is under statute and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will know it as the "Dirty Dogs Act".
It seems to me that none of the three arguments stands up to examination. We are concerned with a serious inroad upon our traditional criminal principles. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, we on these Benches are in sympathy with the amendment so lucidly and carefully set forth by the noble and learned

383
Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. But looking at it in the wider context of the entire Bill, in essence it is perhaps a matter of asserting a proper balance. For example, I strongly support the thrust of subsection (3) which brings home to all trustees the responsibility of their office. Indeed the last time that I rose in this Report stage was to assert the importance of those responsibilities. But the amendment seems to temper that terror with an appropriate degree of common sense. The penalty should be commensurate with the offence; the punishment should fit the crime.
For example, subsection (4) reverses the normal burden of proof, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, which, although it is not unprecedented—we have had several examples in the past few weeks quoted in aid—is at least unusual and must be regarded in our law as a very powerful instrument to be used on very special occasions. To use that reversal of proof on this occasion for this purpose is rather like taking a drop-forge steam hammer to crack a rather small peanut.
For example, it would be possible for a trustee to be, say, on his lawful occasions in Australia when an order for money or goods is improperly issued on the authority of some other trustee. He would then be liable for all the penalties which are spelt out in these subsections, the wording of which is grave, solemn and sonorous:
"every charity trustee of the charity shall be guilty of an offence … all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence".
All noble Lords who are learned in the law will know of the power of the phrase "all due diligence". Many a poor person has squirmed in our courts trying to prove that he did indeed exercise all due diligence on an appropriate occasion only to find that he was required by the law to exercise himself day and night in order to prove all due diligence. It is a little unfair that such fierce penalties should descend on people who have not done anything improper. The words in the noble and learned Lord's amendment,
"are responsible for or privy to",
get the balance about right.
6 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrers agreed that he would look at the last amendment again. I find myself persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I raise a point with the utmost diffidence because my experience of the law was a very long time ago. I have a recollection that as part of the rules of evidence, if a fact is peculiarly within the knowledge of one particular party then the burden of proof is on him to prove that. That is the position of subsection (4). It would be very difficult for the Charity Commissioners to have to prove the degree of knowledge of a trustee.
If the offence has been committed, it is not unreasonable that it should rest on the defendant to satisfy the court that he did all that was required. As I say, I suggest that with great diffidence. The circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has described—that the trustee should
384
find himself liable and would hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions would recognise that there was reason for not prosecuting—suggests a piece of legislation that I would not be happy to see on the statute book.
I ask my noble friend Lord Astor to look at this matter again and to say that it is so closely related to the previous amendment that they can be looked at together in the light of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord in moving the amendment. That might well be helpful.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on the last point. The Government have not sorted out what they should be doing as regards sanctions in the obligations that they are putting into the Bill. On the one hand, they reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, concerning her proposed new clause that it is not acceptable as it is because no sanctions apply to it. On the other hand, they are so keen to have sanctions where matters are added that they are putting in criminal sanctions which have very little place at this stage of the Bill. Of course there should be criminal sanctions for fraud, but in dealing with such matters there is no place for criminal sanctions at all. I entirely agree that the two amendments should be studied together; namely, the one currently under discussion and the one which the noble Earl has said that he will look at.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word in support of my noble and learned friend's amendment. I had always understood that the criminal law exists to punish conduct which is evil and culpable. There are occasions when there is no other way of producing a sanction when absolute liability is imposed. That is in serious cases when there is no alternative. In this case I cannot see that there is any need to impose a criminal sanction suggesting culpability. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has already nailed the volunteers for voluntary work; this clause would seem to hammer them as well as nail them.
As I understand it, the Charity Commissioners will have powers under the Act to deal with failures to comply with the requirements of Section 4A. All that is needed, consistent with a proper constitutional approach to human liberty and freedom, is a criminal sanction when the trustee has been at fault and not an absolute liability. I ask that this issue be reconsidered as a matter of justice.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, he tabled this amendment at Committee stage and it was moved by my noble friend Lord Renton. I answered the amendment then and I shall attempt to do so again today. In doing so I hope to show my noble friend Lord Jenkin that the arguments are rather different from those attaching to the previous amendment and that there are rather different circumstances.
The new provision to be introduced by Clause 3 provides an important new duty on trustees of registered charities—that is, to ensure that certain types of document issued by or on behalf of their

385
charity include a statement that the charity is so registered. That will represent a signal that the charity in question is subject to the supervision of the commissioners. It will also signal to those entering into business or legal transaction with the charity that particular legal considerations apply.
The provision in Clause 3 is important and I believe that noble Lords agree that there should be an effective sanction for non-compliance. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is however concerned about the wording of the existing offence in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord's amendments would limit the commission of an offence under this clause to those trustees responsible for or privy to the act or default in question. I am not sure how the courts will be able to tell whether a particular trustee is responsible for, or indeed privy to, a default which may consist of the omission of the required statement from a particular invoice issued by the charity. It does still seem to me to present an impossible task.
It seems to me also to be right that the law should treat trustees as collectively responsible for defaults in respect of their statutory duties. In this way trustees will be encouraged to establish a regime where any document issued by the registered charity soliciting money or other property states the fact that the charity is registered. However, a defence is provided by subsection (4) in respect of a trustee who can show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence. In this way, the new provision will not punish trustees where they have done all that they can to ensure that the law is complied with. However, that sets a higher test than that proposed by the noble and learned Lord. I believe that the test is an appropriate one.
The noble and learned Lord referred to Amendment No. 93A which is not grouped with these amendments. However, the arguments are very much the same on this amendment as they are on the later amendment. It may help the noble and learned Lord if I say that now. We believe the wording of the provision as it stands to be appropriate to achieve a wider liability under the provision as it is drafted.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he will answer one question. He used the phrase that we should make the trustees "jointly liable", or some such phrase. At any rate the concept of joint liability by all the trustees was implicit in his justification for the clause. Does not the Minister realise that we are not talking about civil liability for the trustees? We are talking about a criminal offence. Does not the Minister feel that the idea of having joint liability for a criminal offence, in circumstances in which one individual can be convicted of that offence even if he does not know anything about it, is going a little too far?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the trustees are responsible for putting a regime in place. That is the important point and, as I said, it is something we want to encourage. I have also said that there is a defence provided by subsection (4) in respect of a trustee who can show that he took all reasonable precautions.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to all your Lordships who have contributed to this debate. The Government must realise that the overwhelming, possibly unanimous, sense of your Lordships' House is against them on this matter. The noble Viscount did not even give a promise of reconsideration. Surely it must give the Government cause to reflect when my noble friend Lord Allen says that what is proposed is grossly against Home Office tradition. So it is.
The noble Viscount used the words "collective responsibility". That again is something one does not wish to hear in the mouth of a Home Office Minister. It is all right, I suppose, for the Nazis to wipe out the whole village of Lidice because an act of terrorism has been committed. Collective responsibility of men, women and children is not the principle of our law. In withdrawing the amendment I ask the Government to consider all that has been said in this debate. Every opinion has been against them, including the great authority of my noble friend Lord Allen that I pray in aid. I ask that there should be further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved].
6.15 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 9 I must inform the House that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 or 11.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, leave out lines 38 to 43.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. These amendments reflect anxieties which have been expressed to me by the Law Society concerning those who advise charities, or those who advise the professional fundraisers of charities, whether they be solicitors, barristers, accountants, or other professional people who give advice for fees, or voluntarily, over long and unsociable hours. Under those provisions such people seem to run the risk of assuming criminal liability where I very much doubt that to be the intention of the Government.
I should like to make clear to the House, as I have to my noble friend, that these are purely probing amendments. I say that because I am not suggesting that the subsections referred to in the amendments should be left out. As I understand it, the clauses imposing criminality follow the sort of clauses which one finds in consumer protection Acts. Having listened to the previous two debates I am not certain that it is appropriate to apply this kind of criminality to the trustees of charities. However, I say most strongly that it is not my intention to express any such opinion in a formal way during the course of this debate.
The form used in the clauses and in the consumer protection Acts is that the organ grinder—that is to say, in this case the charity trustee, the professional fundraiser or the commercial participator—is put under a strict liability, subject to what is generally

387
known as a due diligence exemption. In this case I see two classes of organ grinder's monkey: the employees of the organ grinder, with whom I am not now concerned, and the advisers of the organ grinder. They are both made liable.
The specific phrase in the clause to which my attention has been drawn, and which seems to impose the liability, is that to be found in subsection (5) of the new Section 4A which states:
"Where the commission by any person of an offence … is due to the act or default of some other person".
The words to which I refer are "act or default". What is worrying the Law Society is that people who might otherwise come forward to give advice to charities whether for fees or voluntarily, may be badly deterred by those words. They will feel that if they give the wrong advice, or if they fail to give advice, the words will catch them. The idea that solicitors or other professionals who give wrong advice, or fail to advise, should come within the purview of the criminal law is not one that immediately appeals.
I can envisage the sort of answer that one might give to my proposition. I expect to hear that the words "act or default" are often interpreted in this kind of legislation as meaning wilful or wrongful act or default. I can see that that is the case. I also expect to be told that "default" may not necessarily be equivalent to omission or failure to act. That also is the case in some of the consumer protection cases. However, I do not think it right to take the fact that it may he the law as being a good reason to put into the Bill something which will have the effect of deterring those who might otherwise come forward to give their advice.
Anyone who is connected with or knowledgeable about the position of the advice professions will be aware that over the past 20 years or more the giving of advice, whether for a fee or voluntarily, has within the law and the development of the law become rather more hazardous.
I hope that my noble friend will feel able to show sympathy for this point, which is a new one that has only recently been brought to the attention of the Law Society. Perhaps it may be possible at a later stage to bring forward, or accept, an amendment to cover the point. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I support the amendment. Following on from the previous debate perhaps I may say that the Government have got themselves into a tremendous muddle so far as concerns the criminal law in its application to the Bill. I am sorry that the Minister was so unforthcoming in his answer to the previous debate. It was with considerable reluctance that I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, beg leave to withdraw his amendment. For the first time since I came to the House I was tempted to shout "No". But there it is.
I find subsection (5) extremely difficult to understand in the context of the whole of the new section. I shall go through it in stages as I see it and no doubt the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong. As I understand it, an offence is committed if some documents are put out which do not have on
388
them what they are required to have under Section 4A(1) (a). Once that has happened, prima facie, under subsection (3) every charity trustee is liable. They are liable on summary conviction and it looks as if it is an absolute offence. It is a defence for the charity trustee to show that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. How does he do that? He does that presumably by invoking subsection (5). In many circumstances he would invoke subsection (5). He would show that the offence which has been committed was due to,
"the act or default of some other person".
That exonerates the trustee and moves responsibility on to the other person. However, it is still, as I understand it, an absolute responsibility.
Subsection (5) goes on:
"that other person shall be guilty of the offence".
The other person does not have the defence of "all reasonable precautions" and "all due diligence" which is available under subsection (4) to the trustee when the trustee is being charged under subsection (3). It seems to me that all that subsections (4) and (5) have done is to move the absoluteness of the offence away from the trustee and on to another person who may have taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence. That cannot be right. If that is the effect of the subsection—on the face of it it looks as if it is—the Government have got themselves into an almighty muddle. The Minister should take the amendment away, having regard to the opinions expressed in all parts of the House during the previous debate and in relation to this one, and look at it again.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Coleraine has talked to officials in my department and has been kind enough to explain his concerns to them. We do not see how advice from solicitors given to trustees could render them vicariously liable for either of these offences granted their subject matter. Both clauses place clear duties on trustees, in the case of Clause 3, and professional fund raisers and commercial participators, in the case of Clause 60. If the trustee, fund raiser or commercial participator fails to meet these requirements he is guilty of an offence. If the requirements are not met because someone else has failed to carry out their instructions then that other person is guilty of the offence.
It is important to say that if one puts duties on someone one must also put in place sanctions if he does not carry out those duties. I understand my noble friend's narrower concerns. I hope—to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Richard—that I have been able to give a more unmuddled reply than usual to those concerns. We do not think that his worries about advice from solicitors can render them liable for these offences. We shall look again at the points that he has made but we do not think that this is a problem. I hope that what I have said will go some way to satisfying my noble friend.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he also prepared to look at the highly persuasive point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the defence in subsection (4) would not

389
apply to the other person? Even accepting my noble friend's point about solicitors, if some other person who has undertaken to do it has not done it but for good reason, that defence should be open to him. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is right. I do not think that it is under the Bill as drafted.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, we are talking about the same thing. By looking at one part of it I would be happy to look at the effect on someone else. Although I say that we will look at it, we do not think that it is a problem. However, we shall look carefully at all the points that have been made.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is the noble Viscount saying that he will look at the whole clause, because that is what is required?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not saying that. I am saying that we shall look at the points raised by this amendment, which is a rather narrower point than the whole clause which we discussed during the debate on the previous amendment.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I leave aside for the moment the wider considerations raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and discussed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I thank my noble friend the Minister for saying that he will take away this matter and think about it further. I heard him refer to the kind of liability that I saw advisers assuming to be vicarious liability. It is no such thing. We are not talking about vicarious liability. We are talking about the case where, if a solicitor perhaps fails to give advice as to the correct insertions in notices and advertisements, the charity trustee is liable. The charity trustee perhaps says, claiming the due diligence defence, "I consulted my solicitor and was not told about this". The solicitor is then directly liable under subsection (5) of new Section 4A. A real concern is being expressed and I hope that it may be possible to meet the point in some way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clause 6 [General power to institute inquiries]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (1) after the words "for particular purposes" there shall be inserted the words "including power to investigate any complaint made by a member of a subscription society or a donor to a society or trust which is a registered charity alleging serious negligence or misconduct, default or mismanagement of the administration of the society or trust to the detriment of the complainant or prejudicial to the interests of the charity."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is of fundamental importance. It seeks to extend the area of jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners for actions of intervention or inquiry into the affairs of a particular charity. These powers have at different times undergone considerable strain because the Charity Commissioners take a strict view of what their powers of intervention are. They are dependent almost
390
wholly on financial irregularity or internal conditions which may threaten the position of the charity. They are quite different from what I might describe for the purpose of this amendment as the role of an ombudsman.
This amendment amounts to an ombudsman for charities. It is not that one should necessarily be appointed but that the Charity Commissioners should have the power to appoint an investigator for particular matters. Those particular matters are within the scope of what I think would be the role of an ombudsman for the charitable field.
One of the things which is almost completely absent from the charitable industry is democracy. There is virtually no democracy in charity. If one thinks about it, it is money very often vested in the hands of trustees who may begin to make appeals to the public for the purposes for which the charity was created. Those appeals widen, support grows and more and more money goes into the charity.
I can think of several enormous charities which began in that way. No democracy, no subscriber control and no beneficiary intervention comes into operation. Sole control rests in the hands of the trustees. Under existing law they are not bound to render accounts to the Charity Commissioners, but they will be required to do so from now. Under existing law they are not bound to make an annual report to any one, not even to their subscribers, but under the new Bill they will be obliged to issue such a report. Their obligations do not go beyond supplying a copy to someone on request, whereupon a reasonable charge may be made. That leaves difficulties and disputes in charities in a very difficult and unsatisfactory position.
There are some member societies which have constitutional membership and subscriptions paid. In those charities provision is made for a structure which could be called a reasonable measure of democracy. For example, there is, first, the National Trust—and we know what difficulties beset that organisation at present over fox-hunting; secondly, there is the RSPCA which, many years ago, was almost split down the middle over fox-hunting; and, thirdly, there is the Family Planning Association which certainly was not split over fox-hunting, but which was split over another moral issue which caused a good deal of difficulty in parliamentary circles of late. I refer to the termination of pregnancies. I am not aware of any other charities of any size or importance, besides those that I mentioned, which have a so-called democratic constitution. All the rest are presumably bound by trust deeds and run by trustees.
Where does the complaints procedure come into the matter? How can you complain about a charity for either the way it has treated you or the way it is operating? The fashion in recent years has been to erect alongside almost every institution in Britain the office of a person known as an ombudsman or, stronger still, a commission which may have the rights of oversight on difficulties arising in institutions. I refer to the building societies. They have a commission. Trade unions also have a commission. Moreover, there are government departments all of

391
which are in the system of the Parliamentary Commissioner, with which I was involved on its introduction.
We have an ombudsman for local authorities and there is one for the National Health Service. There are also consumer councils for former nationalised industries, such as electricity, coal, gas, telephones and public utilities. The whole of our institutional life has now produced this network of referees to deal with disputes which may arise internally within those important elements in modern societies and for which other remedies do not exist.
There are no such referees for charities. They are in a world of their own with a great deal less charity in it than one would expect. The ill-will and antagonism that charitable work creates in some areas is beyond comprehension. I can assure your Lordships of that; indeed, I have had experience of it. I have had experience of all such organisations, including trade unions, building societies, the three charities which I mentioned and others which are now in the system of ombudsmen.
There should be some remedy for those who feel that they have been ill treated by charity. There are some notable cases which appear in press articles from time to time. If one reads an article in the Independent of 16th November 1991, one can see fully publicised the difference of opinion between Miss Mary Moore and the Henry Moore Foundation. I need not enlarge upon it because the full story is told in the newspaper. I am in correspondence with Mary Moore because I happen to have been a lifelong friend of her father. Henry Moore and I joined the Army in 1916, and we were friends until he died at the age of 88. He withstood my appeal to stay alive until 90 so that we could celebrate that anniversary together.
In the organisations that have members, the question arises as to whether there is the power of expulsion, the power to refuse subscriptions or the power to refuse entry. It is pretty well established that most of those societies have the right to refuse entry and the right to refuse the renewal of subscriptions. But what about the right to expel? Here we come to the RSPCA. I am bound to mention the name because I have given the society notice that I must do so. The question of the right of expulsion without satisfactory means of appeal has created bad blood in the RSPCA for a very long time. It has involved court action—unsatisfactory means of obtaining redress in the circumstances—and there is deadlock in particular cases at present.
There is no one to consult. There is no one to suggest that the treatment of a member is contrary to a sense of justice or fairness. I want to open the door of the Charity Commissioners to intercede, if they see fit to do so, in disputes and difficulties which arise in charities which, while not of serious import to the public, have a grave effect upon the internal harmony and efficiency of the organisation involved. The amendment would give the Charity Commissioners the power—no more than that—to make appointments as regards inquiries for particular purposes. That is of great importance. We cannot leave the
392
charity industry in a world of isolated activity, calling upon the public for money, and handling millions of pounds subscribed by the public, without fulfilling some obligations to those who are sustaining its activities.
The very nature of charity work, and charity composition and constitution, precludes people from intervening. There may be nothing for it but to have a row, a scandal, a court case or something of that kind. That leads to a great waste of resources. Some charities have wasted a great deal of money in the courts. In those circumstances, we must ask the Charity Commissioners to be willing to assume powers of intervention and intercession which go beyond the boundaries of their existing powers.
The amendment does not force anything upon the Charity Commissioners. It merely extends the area of their jurisdiction. If that extension of their jurisdiction is rejected, some alternative way of dealing with the problem must be found. That is why I believe that the Bill should be enlarged to give the Charity Commissioners an additional area in which to render good service to charities and to those who work in charities.
I hope that I shall receive a favourable response to my suggestion. If it is not taken up, I can assure your Lordships that it will not lie down. Some remedy will have to be found so that we cease to waste charitable money on disputations which conciliation, advice or help would probably overcome. There is nothing worse in public life than disputes which lead people on either side to take positions of no retreat. They then join battle, give the lawyers a picnic, and the courts work which drags on and on, as has happened in recent years. I beg your Lordships to give serious consideration to this proposal. The amendment can be refused only if it provides so many difficulties that the Charity Commissioners could not cope. The Charity Commissioners will have a great deal to do in times to come. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it had not been my intention to intervene in the debate on the amendment, but I should like to take the opportunity just to remind your Lordships that this is a Bill which enjoys the general favour and support of noble Lords from all sides of the House. There are 168 amendments on the Marshalled List. We have now reached Amendment No. 12. I need say nothing beyond giving those facts to indicate the need for some expedition.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, time would be saved if the Government were to accept the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive me, I shall not follow the mathematical speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I want to say just two words about the amendment. When I first read it, and then read Section 6 of the Charities Act 1960, I am bound to say that the amendment did not seem to add any extra power to the powers already available to the commissioners by virtue of the 1960 Act. It is clear that that is not only what my noble friend Lord Houghton has in mind. He is worried

393
about, and it is something that should be studied and considered seriously, whether there should be some kind of independent grievance mechanism—if I can use some of the modern jargon—in relation to the charities world.
The amendment is limited to,
"a member of a subscription society or a donor";
in other words, one has to be a member or a donor before one is entitled to complain. That may be all right in terms of an amendment to Section 6 of the 1960 Act, but in terms of setting up a grievance procedure, I am not sure that that provision is comprehensive enough.
This is a major issue which, as far as I am aware, we did not debate on Second Reading or in Committee. Instead of having a major debate on this matter tonight, if the Minister undertook to come back on Third Reading—not necessarily to accept the amendment—we could have a considered discussion of the merits of my noble friend's proposal with which, I am bound to say, I have some considerable sympathy. It relates to whether there should be some kind of grievance procedure; what sort of grievance procedure it should be; to whom should it be available; who should judge the grievances; and what, if any, sanctions should be available. That might produce a healthier charities' world. If the Minister would accept that suggestion it might also produce a shorter debate.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I want to say a word about the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, with whom, for many years, I have generally found myself in agreement. Your Lordships have a constitutional function. If legislation is not properly scrutinised by your Lordships, it will not be scrutinised at all. It is denying your Lordships' role in the Constitution that we should have a list of amendments like this on a Thursday. We embarked upon the Bill at about 3.30 p.m. We had a Statement which took half an hour, and we shall have an adjournment for an hour in order that we may refresh ourselves from the exhaustion of the Bill.
We want to see the Bill on the statute book, but we have a supervening duty to scrutinise it properly. I should have much more sympathy with the Government if they had shown the slightest resilience, and the slightest respect for the overwhelming view of your Lordships, on the clause which introduces guilt by association and the reversing of the onus of proof. It is strange to find a Home Office Minister using the language of a gauleiter in respect of collective responsibility. We have a responsibility here. We are not to be regarded as a legislative sausage machine just churning through government legislation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not intend to become involved in the merits of the amendment, but I should like to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He spoke for the overwhelming majority of the Members of the House in that we want to make decent progress on the legislation. We have the central duty, which has been identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon
394
of Glaisdale, not merely to accept whatever the Government may say when amendments are moved. That would not be our position.
All I would say to the Government in relation to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just said, is that in future, when there is overwhelming feeling in all parts of the House in favour of a particular proposition, I hope that the Government will see their way to saying that they will at least reflect upon the matter before Third Reading. Otherwise, we shall spend an unnecessary amount of time discussing the Bill, and that would be injurious to the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that it was the duty of your Lordships to scrutinise legislation. He is entirely right. He said that it was not the business of the House of Lords to churn out government legislation like a sausage machine. Any scrutiny of the amendments to the Bill on the Marshalled List today shows that that is precisely what your Lordships have not done. We have not been churning government legislation out like a sausage machine. We have been trying to understand the anxieties of your Lordships and meeting them wherever possible.
The noble and learned Lord suggested that my noble friend was like a gauleiter, but in my noble friend's defence I have to say that I thought that was being a little too hard because he is not a gauleiter, nor am I, and the Home Office does not consist of gauleiters.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is fair. My noble friend said that lie would consider the matters about which your Lordships are worried. What he did say—and I believe that he was quite right—is that the Government's view was that the proposed course suggested by the noble and learned Lord on previous amendments was not correct. However, of course we intend to consider what your Lordships have said and it would be a discourtesy not to do so.
My noble friend Lord Peyton suggested moving on and my noble friend Lord Moyne said, in a slightly simplistic way, that if the Government would accept the amendment, everything would be easy. However, that would not have addressed the problem which stimulated my noble friend's intervention. He was merely trying to point out that there are about 160 more amendments which we hope to cover tonight. Any expedition on the part of all noble Lords would be desirable. While it is important to legislate properly, it is also important to ensure that the legislation is passed. It would be a pity if too much undue scrutiny resulted in the legislation not being brought about.
Perhaps I may be as concise as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, expressed concern, but the commissioners already have power under Section 6 of the Charities Act 1960 to do what he proposes in this amendment. Under Section 6 they may,
"institute inquiries with regard to charities or a particular charity or class of charities, either generally or for particular purposes".

395
They may institute such an inquiry into any charity which is not an exempt charity. The commissioners' power of inquiry could scarcely be wider than it already is and it certainly allows them to conduct inquiries in the circumstances set out in the noble Lord's amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to a grievance procedure but that is going further than the amendment would require. It also goes further than the Charity Commissioners require. If an organisation is a charity, it is up to that organisation to organise its own methods of dealing with grievances at annual general meetings where it has an opportunity. If there is mismanagement or fraud, of course the commissioners can intervene. But if there is a dispute about the charity's operations and policy, without any suggestion of wrongdoing, the commissioners do not have such a power to intervene; nor do they have any locus. This could be an issue for discussion, but it goes wider than the context of the Bill.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, regarding business, I restrained myself during the Committee stage because I had so much to do with the preparation of the Bill. Much that I did bore fruit when the Bill was produced. The matter I now raise has been burning into my soul for a long time. I wondered whether I should let the Bill go through without voicing what I believe is a serious grievance in a growing industry of importance to the public. It is the public I am thinking of here. Although they are probably not directly involved in the grievance problem, the public are interested in being assured that societies that ask for their money and use it in ever-increasing amounts should be well run, efficient, free of corruption and trouble and that everything is conducive to the best use of their money in the interests of the purpose they support.
I wish to help. I do not know how much we can accomplish between now and 11 o'clock but the noble Earl is commendably bringing forward a great deal on behalf of the Government. I do not wish to prolong the debate on the amendment and shall not permit it. I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being since the problem has been ventilated. I have not wasted the time of your Lordships' House, if I may say so, in ventilating the problem because it is a grievous matter and gives rise to much trouble.
It is now left for conversations with the Charity Commissioners on what they believe to be within the range of the powers they already have under the 1960 Act. If they already have the powers then one might suggest that it is only gilding the lily to give them more, but I do not wish to raise such matters. I should like to see those powers used, if the commissioners have them. I know of no occasions when they have used them where matters were sufficiently serious to require their intervention.
There is now a new chairman and a new outlook in the Charity Commission, with a wider scope for its activities and judgment. I shall withdraw the amendment and ask Mr. Guthrie what he feels about the debate and what he has in mind to do about the
396
issue. I could enlarge upon it ad lib and he will understand the difficulty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Power of Commissioners to obtain information and documents]:
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Power to act for protection of charities]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Supplementary provisions relating to receiver and manager appointed for a charity]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 15A:
Page 10, leave out lines 12 to 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief in moving this amendment. The whole of subsection (7) of the new Section 20A (in Clause 9 on page 10) is completely unnecessary. The background to the amendment concerns the state of our statute book. In 1975 the Renton Committee on the preparation of legislation remarked on the prolixity of statutes. The statute book then ran to three volumes. Ten years later, fewer statutes ran to five volumes and that was mainly due to the increasing prolixity in the preparation of legislation. The format was then enlarged, but even with the larger format, in two years the statute book returned to five large volumes, which are expensive for consumers. It is therefore incumbent on us to make sure that we do not inflate the statute book with completely unnecessary formulae.
Subsection (6) of the proposed new Section 20A states:
"Regulations may make provision with respect to",
and so on. Subsection (7) states:
"Regulations under subsection (6) above may, in particular".
Neither of those provisions is mandatory; both are discretionary. Quite obviously a particularity is merely a particular of the generality that goes before. The Secretary of State simply does not need those words. That being so, it is our duty at any rate to shorten the statute book a little. Even the smallest relief by the tapping of merely a fluid ounce of the dropsical liquid that informs our legislation is not to be deprecated. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I concur. I need add no other words except to say that the provision in the Bill is totally otiose.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, under the new Section 20A to be inserted in the 1960 Act, the Commissioners can appoint a receiver and manager where the administration of a charity has completely broken down, or where its property is at risk. Regulations made under subsection (6) may make provision governing the appointment and removal of receivers and managers; their remuneration from the income of the charity concerned and their reports to the Commissioners.
The purpose of subsection (7) of the new Section 20A which this amendment would remove is to specify particular actions which regulations may authorise the Commissioners to take. There are three of them: to require security from a receiver and manager for the

397
due discharge of his functions; to set the level of remuneration of a receiver and manager and to disallow any part of that remuneration in the circumstances specified in the regulations. I take account of what the noble and learned Lord has said. However, we feel it is important to put beyond doubt that the Commissioners may be authorised in this way to take steps which may be essential if the appointment of a receiver and manager is to achieve its purpose.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope I may point out that the regulations as proposed under subsection (7) (a) are covered under the regulations proposed under subsection (6) (a). Those under subsection (7) (b) and subsection (7) (c) are covered under those mentioned in subsection (6) (b). I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that subsection (7) is totally unnecessary.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I am sorry I stigmatised the previous speech by the noble Viscount as that of a gauleiter. This time he did not reply like a gauleiter. However, he replied in the manner of a Minister, taking no account of the speech that had been advanced in favour of the amendment. It comes back to the point that has been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. If one gives a general power, that includes every particular power. Either subsection (7) goes beyond the general power—it does not—or it is unnecessary. I am afraid that point was not met. However, it would be absurd to divide the House on a point of statutory construction and I therefore shall reluctantly withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report on this Bill be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begins again at five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1992
7.5 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the proposed order, subject to the approval of your Lordships' House, is to amend Section 1 of the
398
International Transport Conventions Act 1983, in order to take account of amendments to the convention concerning international carriage by Rail, known as COTIF, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The amendments are set out in Command Papers 1689 and 1690.
COTIF was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 9th May 1980. It brought together a number of earlier conventions dealing with various aspects of the international carriage by rail of passengers, luggage and goods. The purpose of these conventions was to create a uniform system of carriage law for international through traffic by rail.
Section 1 of the International Transport Conventions Act 1983 gave effect to COTIF—in the version published in English in Command Paper 8535—in the United Kingdom. The amendments before your Lordships tonight are the first to be promulgated since the 1983 Act. They were drawn up by a revision committee in accordance with the provisions of the convention. The UK played a full part in the revision committee and the Government fully support the amendments.
Amendments adopted by the revision committee automatically come into force for member states one year from the date of their notification to member states by the central office which administers the convention. On that basis, the amendments adopted by the revision committee in December 1989—and which are contained in Part I of the protocol reproduced in Command Paper 1690—came into force for the UK on 1st January 1990. On the same basis the amendments adopted by the revision committee in May 1990—and which are contained in Part I of the protocol reproduced in Command Paper 1689—came into force on 1st June 1991.
The amendments make detailed changes to the rules applying to the international carriage of passengers and freight. Several of them update the limits on the compensation payable by the railways in certain circumstances, such as the loss of registered luggage, to take account of inflation. Others remove references to categories of service formerly provided by some continental railways but which have ceased to exist. Many are less comprehensible to the layperson and concern the detailed and complicated procedures followed by the railways in these matters.
As I explained earlier, Section 1 of the International Transport Conventions Act 1983 gave effect in the UK to COTIF as reproduced in Command Paper 8535. It is therefore necessary to amend Section 1 to refer to the convention as it now stands, by introducing references to Command Papers 1689 and 1690.
Section 8 of the 1983 Act provides for Her Majesty the Queen to make appropriate amendments to the Act by Order in Council where the Government have agreed to a revision of the convention. Before Her Majesty can be recommended to make such an order, a draft must be laid in Parliament and be approved by a resolution of each House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brahazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain noble Lords are pleased to have received that explanation of the order. The convention establishes rules and is an excellent example of the type of co-operation which is so essential for the regulation of the international transport of passengers, goods and other materials. As a member state of the convention, we naturally have an obligation to accept the amendments to which the noble Lord referred.
The Labour Party fully accepts the Act and the amendments to which the noble Lord has referred. I was pleased to note that undertakings have been given by both British Rail and the Northern Ireland railways that on the appropriate date they will carry into effect the amendments to which the noble Lord has referred. We hope the order will receive the full approval of noble Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 to 8.5 p.m.]

Charities Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 18 [Dormant bank accounts of charities]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 18, line 2, leave out ("one that") and insert:

("(i) a transaction consisting in a payment into the account, or

(ii) a transaction which").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 and speak to Amendment No. 17. In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, expressed concern that the powers which were given to commissioners by Clause 18 did not go far enough. This amendment addresses that concern. It will allow bank or building society managers to volunteer information to the commissioners about any charity account which has received payments into it in the last five years but which would otherwise be dormant for the purposes of Clause 18.
I should explain that this new provision is not expressed as a duty on a bank or building society or its managers because such a duty would be unenforceable. However, it will greatly assist the commissioners in their programme of local reviews of charities. In the course of such reviews the commissioners will provide lists of charities in a particular area to local banks, which will then be able to provide information on dormant bank accounts.
The amendment will not enable the commissioners to require banks and building societies to provide them with information about this wider category of account. The reason for that restriction is that the banks and building societies themselves use a definition of dormant account which is very similar to that in Clause 18(8) (a); it does not take account of payments in. If the commissioners were able to require information about this larger category of account, as they will be able to do in respect of accounts which are
400
dormant within the present definition of Clause 18, it would place a much greater burden on banks. Identifying relevant accounts would necessitate substantial alteration to banks' and building societies' existing record-keeping and computer systems. This would be expensive and time-consuming and I doubt whether the likely return would justify it.
I have also considered very carefully the proposal that Clause 18 should give the commissioners power to deal with an investment which generates income paid directly into a charity's bank account. I said in Committee—and after consideration I think it is correct—that the commissioners already have a range of powers to deal with moribund charities and whatever property they may have. For example, they can appoint new trustees or make a scheme to give new life to the charity or to vest its property in another charity. As they have these existing powers, I do not think it necessary to provide parallels to them in Clause 18.
I hope that these amendments will meet the concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for moving this amendment. It takes the place of the amendment which I moved and withdrew before the Public Bill Committee, and it meets the point which I had in mind.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, these Benches also welcome this amendment. We are grateful for the care and concern that the Government have given to it since the Committee stage. However, I am not entirely satisfied that I fully understand the wider implications of Amendment No. 17 which has been grouped with this amendment, especially the second paragraph of it. I should welcome any clarification of what would now be defined as a dormant account.
I have one particular instance in mind—I apologise to the House and to the noble Earl for bringing it up without having been able to give him advance notice. The reason for that is quite simple: its relevance struck me only this morning. The case is that of the Gillingham Bus Disaster Fund which, as your Lordships may recall, was a tragic event which took place on 4th December 1951. In darkness, a column of Royal Marine cadets was marching down Dock Road in Gillingham on the way to a boxing tournament. A double-decker bus ploughed into them, killing 24 and injuring others. The mayors of Gillingham, Chatham and Rochester set up a fund, whose given objects were:
"to defray the funeral expenses, to care for those who had been disabled and to assist such worthy cause or causes … as the mayors may determine".
Donations came from all over the world and several things were done. But since the boys had no dependants, the money could not be used up and there was a great deal of wrangling over it. At a High Court hearing, Mr. Justice Harman ruled that the fund was not a valid charitable trust and that the money must be returned to the donors. Thus, he started what has been described as the biggest manhunt in British legal

401
history. It is said that there were something like 3,000 individual payments to the fund and the total number of subscribers was put at 250,000.
Today, that fund stands at £7,702.70, without interest. Claimants for their money back would receive interest calculated back to the year of the High Court judgment. The snag could be that, since Mr. Justice Harman ruled that the fund was not a valid charitable trust, it could be said that the Charities Bill cannot be applied to it. Morally and for all practical purposes it was a charity and present publicity for this Bill has renewed concern in all the Medway towns after all these years.
Is that a dormant account? Can it come in any way within the scope of this clause or Clause 19? I apologise again for bringing up this matter without notice. It is an important issue and this seems to be the only time that I can bring it up. I should be grateful for any clarification which the Minister can give, either now or by letter or at a later stage.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I can try the first two of the noble Lord's options. I shall certainly consider his point and it would probably be best to write to him in detail about it. The short answer is that it is probably not a charity but was set up for benevolent or philanthropic purposes, which excludes it from being a charity and the rigours of the Charity Commission.
The noble Lord asked what was a dormant account. A dormant account is something out of which there has been no payment for the last five years. Banks have that régime and can locate the account easily. However, where payments are made in, it is also possible to find examples of accounts which have had payments in but not payments out. The reason that the amendment is so expressed is so that the banks can readily identify dormant accounts and yet can supply to the commissioners, if they wish, the information on the accounts into which money has been paid without obviating their professional charge not to divulge information.
I hope that I have explained the position to the noble Lord but I shall write to him about the Gillingham matter.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may just interject briefly. I remember the Gillingham bus disaster case very well indeed. It was found not to be a charitable trust. It is not a dormant fund. It does not come within the Charities Bill at all. Mr. Justice Harman found in effect that it was not a valid trust at all. He did not consider whether it could have been validated on the basis that it was merely a mandate to pay out the money to the persons who fell within the terms of the appeal. That point was not dealt with at all. It is questionable whether the decision was correct in the light of later cases. However, it does not enter at all into the consideration of this clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 18, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) For the purpose of determining the matters in respect of which any of the powers conferred by section 6 or 7 of the 1960 Act (power of Commissioners to institute inquiries or
402
obtain information) may be exercised it shall be assumed that the Commissioners have no functions under this section in relation to accounts to which this subsection applies (with the result that, for example, a relevant institution shall not, in connection with the functions of the Commissioners under this section, be required under section 6(3) (a) of that Act to furnish any statements, or answer any questions or inquiries, with respect to any such accounts held by the institution).
This subsection applies to accounts which are dormant accounts by virtue of subsection (8) (a) above but would not be such accounts if sub-paragraph (i) of that provision were omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 20 [Annual statements of accounts]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 18 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 19.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 19, line 23, leave out ("£10,000") and insert ("£25,000").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there was a certain amount of discussion in Committee about the fall in the content of accounts and about the annual income figure which should separate those charities which are allowed to prepare simpler accounts, such as a receipt and payment account, from those which are required to produce a full income and expenditure account.
Several Members of your Lordships' Committee felt that the present dividing figure of £10,000 was too low. I was urged to increase it to £25,000. At the time I did not undertake to reconsider the matter but I thought that, in view of the concerns that had been expressed, I should nevertheless do so. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that an increase in the figure from £10,000 to £25,000 is justified. The amendment therefore effects that increase. I beg to move.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, my interest in this matter is as a member of the council of the National Association of Almshouses. The amendment subsumes the much more modest amendment which stands in my name. It will be widely welcomed and I greatly appreciate the noble Earl's consideration.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, as the mover of the amendment in Committee, perhaps I may say to my noble friend how grateful I am for this amendment. We had a very interesting debate in Committee and I had the impertinence to put the amendment to a Division, which was lost by one vote. I am very grateful to my noble friend for reviewing the matter. In the light of the arguments put forward he has decided to table this amendment. I am sure it will commend itself to the House.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I merely add that the amendment is warmly welcomed on this side of the House. I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to our arguments in Committee.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I also am grateful for the amendment. I had a similar one at Committee stage but the figure was £35,000 as opposed to £25,000. It is extremely difficult to find the right figure and I am happy with this one. I am sure that the charity finance

403
directors' group, which briefed me at Committee stage and at this stage of the Bill, will also be happy. I thank the noble Earl for considering the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 is pre-empted.
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 19, line 42, leave out subsection (7) and insert:
("(7) Requirements prescribed under subsection (1) shall, where so specified, apply to a charity which is a company in addition to any accounting requirements applicable to the company under the Companies Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and the names of three other colleagues in this Chamber. It can be dealt with quite quickly. I am told that nobody knows how many charities there are in the country and that there are believed to be 171,000, of which approximately 150,000 are unincorporated, and approximately 20,000 are charities which are companies. In speaking to this amendment I speak not only on my own behalf; I represent the views of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which body I am a member, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (Ireland includes the northern Province and the Republic of Ireland), the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the charity finance directors' group. All those bodies are in daily touch with charities. They represent the views of the charities with which they are in communication every day of the week. The troops under my temporary command are normally docile and amenable. However, on this issue they are militant and armed to the teeth with every known equipment. They are unanimously in favour of the amendment.
In the dialogue which has preceded the hearing today, the Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to budge and they do not wish to approve the amendment. It appeared as though a confrontation situation was arising. However, in the dialogue that has taken place recently it seems that some consensus may be found.
The Government have accepted the position that there must be level playing fields for charities which are companies and charities which are unincorporated. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will make a statement that there is power under Section 257 of the Companies Act 1985 to make regulations which will require charities which are companies to provide the same information as will be provided by unincorporated charities under Clause 20 of the Bill. If the statement which the noble Earl is able to give is firm enough to assure us that those regulations under Section 257 of the Companies Act will be brought into play, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
It is important that the regulations made under Section 257 of the Companies Act are contemporaneous with regulations which will be made under
404
Clause 20 of the Bill. If not, there will be chaos in the interregnum period and that will be damaging to everyone concerned.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. I understand that we shall have a helpful statement from the noble Earl. I have a copy of the letter which he sent to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in particular in relation to Section 257 of the Companies Act.
I hope that the noble Earl will address himself to the crucial question raised at the conclusion of the noble Lord's contribution. Will the Government take contemporaneous action with regard to any regulations which may be made under the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Benson, rightly said, it is essential that that should be done, otherwise there will he a high state of confusion. The Government have indicated that they are prepared to move in that direction, but we want an assurance on that specific point. I hope that the noble Earl will be in a position to give it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I too have put my name to the amendment. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, on the accounting side because he has far more experience and much greater skill on that aspect.
It is extremely important that there is a level playing field for charities. Under the Companies Act charitable companies do not have to give any details as to their administrative expenses or their fund raising and public relations costs. Under the Charities Bill, charities that are not incorporated as companies have to give that information. It therefore makes it extremely difficult for the donating public to be able to judge between the work and efficiency of a charity that is unincorporated and one that is incorporated.
The charity world in general—I include incorporated and unincorporated charities—all want a level playing field. It is essential. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a satisfactory undertaking on the point.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, on these Benches we support the amendment for all the reasons that have been given.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have never before been more apprehensive when making an intervention in a debate than when it is held that I shall make a statement.
First, I understand the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, because he was kind enough to come to see me, as did my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The anxiety is that the law should not allow charities which choose to become companies to report on their accounting and financial affairs in a less vigorous way than that which is required for unincorporated charities. There is nothing between the noble Lord, Lord Benson, or indeed anyone else, and me on that point. Where we differ is on how that consistency in accounting standards is to be achieved.
The amendment before your Lordships subjects charitable companies to two sets of accounting requirements—those which are contained in regulations made under the Bill; and those which are

405
contained in the Companies Act—even where that double requirement serves no useful purpose. We do not believe that that is satisfactory. Some charitable companies may choose to prepare their accounts as required under the Companies Act but in a form which takes account of the statement of recommended practice (which is commonly known as SORP 2) for charity accounts. But that is quite different from being obliged to comply with the Companies Act requirements and with the requirements of the Bill, and to be subject to two sets of penalties for failure to comply.
It is possible that once the regulations which are required under the Bill have been made, they may prove to be broadly similar to those governing charitable companies. But we could not guarantee that they would always remain so. Future changes could lead to conflicting requirements and therefore to considerable extra burdens on charitable companies.
I believe that there is an alternative means of achieving our common end. It is to use existing powers in the Companies Act 1985 to create an accounting regime which could be tailored specifically to charitable companies and which would be equivalent to that for unincorporated charities.
There are already certain types of company to which the common accounting requirements of company law may not be suited, and the law recognises that. For example, banks and insurance companies prepare their accounts according to a modified regime which is provided by the Companies Act 1985 as amended by the Companies Act 1989. The Secretary of State has power under Section 257—to which the noble Lord, Lord Benson, referred—of the Companies Act 1985 to modify the accounting provisions of that Act in order to establish special accounting regimes for different classes of company. There is no reason in principle why such a modified regime could not be established for charitable purposes.
The Secretary of State will consider sympathetically any detailed proposals which may be put forward to ensure that charitable companies are subject to accounting provisions which are just as rigorous as those for unincorporated charities.
Once the regulations for unincorporated charities have been drafted, as they will have to be, we shall look carefully at the two sets of requirements to see whether a modified regime for charitable companies would then be desirable. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Benson, that I shall be looking at that as a matter of urgency. But he will understand that that cannot be done until the regulations for unincorporated charities have been drawn. If there is found to be a need for that regime, I shall ensure that the two regimes are brought in contemporaneously. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord and others who are anxious. I believe that that is the best route to take.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for making that announcement and that concession. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Clause 21 [Annual audit or examination of charity accounts]:
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 19, line 44, leave out ("(or both)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this is a drafting amendment I rise to move it with diffidence. However, it is a matter on which I feel fairly strongly. Under the clause a charity is caught if its gross income exceeds £100,000, and its total expenditure exceeds £100,000. One would have thought that if both items exceeded £100,000 the charity would be caught twice over. That makes one wonder what on earth the words, tucked away as they are in brackets, actually mean.
In Committee the noble Earl explained that a charity whose income and expenditure exceeded £100,000 in the same year might argue that the audit requirements did not apply. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, promptly said that he believed that he could say on behalf of his fellow Law Lords that such a construction would stand no chance of success whatever in this House. Notwithstanding that positive opinion—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord still holds that opinion—these words remain in the Bill.
I can imagine some court sitting in the future puzzling over why the words were included and perhaps reaching the conclusion that the intention of the clause, however crudely put, was that the income and expenditure added together should equal £100,000. I believe that far from putting the matter beyond doubt, as the draftsman claims, the provision introduces a note of ambiguity. I cannot see that the words add anything. On the basis that we should not put into the statute provisions that are unnecessary I wish to see them deleted. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the points made. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we on these Benches agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The construction appears to be exactly as he stated. The provision is more misleading as it stands than it would be if the words were removed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I have dreaded dealing with this amendment. We dealt with it in Committee and I must agree that one needs a wet towel around one's head in order to understand it. Perhaps I can do my best to explain it to the noble Lord, Lord Allen. The Bill reads:
"Subsection (2) applies to a financial year of a charity … if the charity's gross income or total expenditure (or both),
fulfil certain conditions. The idea is that if the income is more than £100,000, or if the expenditure is more than £100,000, or if both are more than £100,000 the charity must prepare different forms of accounts. Without the words "or both" it might be construed that as both items have exceeded the limit and not just one item the charity need not be subjected to that regime.
I have taken the proposal back and considered it. I am persuaded—indeed, the parliamentary draftsman is persuaded, which is more important—that the words are desirable because they remove the

407
ambiguity. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. I can see a look of enormous satisfaction on his face and I hope that he will agree with me.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down I wish to ask whether it would be better English if in order to achieve the aim the final line were to read:
"if either the charity's gross income or total expenditure",
leaving out the words "or both" which appear in brackets? I believe that the way in which the Bill has been drafted is extremely convoluted.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am totally unpersuaded by the reply. The omission of the words leave no ambiguity whatever, whereas their inclusion leave open the possibility of ambiguity. However, I shall not waste the time of the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 20, line 11, at end insert ("or who is eligible in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the amendment is not to contest the principle of professional audit but to increase the flexibility of the regulators to decide who may carry out such audits. It appears to me that the case for the amendment is put in the 1989 White Paper rather better than I can put it. It states:
"The Commissioners would also have a power to make regulations allowing exceptions to the audit requirements where they were satisfied that adequate audit arrangements already existed. An exception could be made, for example, where there were corporate trustees such as the trust companies of the major banks, which have their own internal inspection and audit arrangements, or where one of the trustees was a local authority and the accounts were audited by an auditor appointed by the Audit Commission".
I understand that some of the audits concerning, for example, Action with Communities in Rural England are carried out by retired accountants or local authority qualified auditors. It is a pity that we should change the law so that in future they could not have such audits carried out by perfectly competent people without charge or for only a modest fee but would have to find the thousands of pounds which would be needed to carry out professional audits. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand that there may be auditors who for some reason are not eligible to audit company accounts but who may be qualified to audit charity accounts. On the understanding that the amendment will be withdrawn I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Allen, an undertaking to introduce at the next stage a government amendment that has the same effect as his amendment.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, with that assurance I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 20, line 17, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 18 and insert ("have the requisite ability and practical experience to carry out a competent examination of the accounts,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the amendment introduces a different definition of an independent examiner. The independent examiner is the person who must examine the accounts of those charities which are not required to have their accounts audited by a professional auditor. In Committee criticism was made of the present definition in Clause 21(3). A number of noble Lords considered that it was drawn so as to require the examination to be carried out by a professional accountant or auditor. That was not our intention and my noble friend undertook to see whether the definition could be altered to remove any possibility of misunderstanding. The kind of person we are aiming at is, of course, the bank or building society manager, the local authority treasurer, the retired accountant and similar persons. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the new definition fits the bill, and I beg to move.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, that entirely meets the point raised in Committee. I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Supplementary provisions relating to audits etc.]:
Lord Benson Lord Benson moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 21, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (iii).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 because they deal with the same subject.
These are technical matters of wording and from the dialogue preceding Report stage I understand that the Government will accept the principle set out in those four amendments. However, as is the way of things, they would like to use their own wording in expressing the principle. If I have correctly stated the position as regards those four amendments, I shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw Amendment No. 25 and I shall not move Amendments Nos. 26 to 28.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am aware that the mention of a "certificate" issued in relation to the audit of accounts may have alarmed members of the accounting profession. Perhaps I should explain, as I did in Committee, that it was never our intention to require an auditor or an independent examiner, to certify as to the accuracy of the accounts which he has audited. That would place an inappropriate task on him. He would simply have been certifying to the fact of having carried out the audit or examination. However, I accept that the use of this terminology has caused anxiety in some circles and may be misleading. I am pleased to say therefore that I accept the amendments in principle.
I understand that there is a small drafting change necessary to the amendments on Clause 22. Therefore, if the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, I shall make the necessary changes at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 21, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert:
("(d) entitling such an auditor or independent examiner to require, in the case of a charity, information and explanations from past or present charity trustees or trustees for the charity, or from past or present officers, auditors or independent examiners or employees of the charity;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a modest amendment to add a provision to paragraph (d) of Clause 22(1). At present that states that:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … entitling … an auditor or an independent examiner to require … information and explanations from past or present charity trustees or trustees for the charity, or from past or present officers or employees of the charity".
It has been put to me that in the course of his work an independent examiner may need to request information from a past, or indeed present, independent examiner. The clause needs to be amended to incorporate that entitlement.
It may be that the income of a charity may increase or decrease. Accordingly, it is possible to progress from an independent examination to an audit and vice versa. Therefore, provision should be made for an auditor to request information from a previous independent examiner. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I only wish to add that we could envisage that there may be situations in which an auditor does not enjoy a wholly constructive relationship with the charity's trustees who, we accept, should be the primary source of his information. It would be helpful for an auditor of that kind to have a statutory right to ask for information from past auditors or examiners. By adding the words "auditors or independent examiners" to this subsection, we are striving to do no more than to add to the belt and braces with which he is already equipped, a piece of rope just in case.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, obviously, we want auditors or independent examiners to have access to as wide a range of information as possible about the charity which is being audited or examined. I do not believe that the inclusion of past auditors or examiners in the list of people set out in Clause 22(1) (d) is right.
The duties of an auditor or an examiner relate to the accounts for the year which he is auditing or examining. He should obtain information and clarification about those accounts from the charity trustees either directly or via the employees. They áre responsible for the accounts and the accounting records. They should answer the questions. The auditor or examiner is not entitled, when looking at the accounts which are being audited or examined, to look behind previous years' accounts. Those earlier accounts are not his responsibility unless he has audited them also.
However, if the auditor or examiner cannot obtain proper answers from the trustees, he should report the
410
matter to the Charity Commissioners. Their information-gathering powers enable them to obtain any information in relation to a charity, other than an exempt charity, from any person who may have relevant information. Therefore, it would be not be right for the Bill to include past auditors.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hear the noble Earl's explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Annual reports]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Special provisions as respects accounts and annual reports of exempt and other excepted charities]:
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 28A:
Leave out Clause 24 and insert:
("Special provision as respects accounts of exempt and other excepted charities
. Nothing in sections 19 to 23 applies to any exempt charity or any charity excepted by section 4(4) of the 1960 Act (charities not required to be registered); but section 32(1) and (2) of the 1960 Act (general obligations to keep accounts) shall continue to apply to any such charity.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we spent some time on this issue in Committee. On many of the issues which we debated on that occasion I understood the Government's position even when I did not agree with it. However, on this matter I found it quite difficult wholly to understand the line which they took.
The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the smallest charities which exist; that is, charities with perhaps an annual income of £300, £400 or £500 per year up to a maximum of £1,000. The amendment is designed to remove the obligation on those exceptionally small charities with an income of less than £1,000 per year, first, to keep accounting records in accordance with Clause 19; secondly, to produce an annual statement of accounts in accordance with Clause 20; thirdly, to have an annual audit or examination in accordance with Clause 21; and fourthly, to prepare an annual report in accordance with Clause 23. In other words, the purpose of the amendment is to leave those exceptionally small charities under the present and far lighter regime of the Charities Act 1960.
The arguments in favour of the amendment are self evident. First, the bureaucratic implications of the Bill as it stands are truly remarkable. As I have indicated, we are talking about thousands of charities with perhaps a total income per year of £200, £300 or £400. Why do we require this massive bureaucratic regime to be imposed upon them?
There is already widespread anxiety about the obligations on trustees of charities and there may be some reluctance—I do not wish to overstate the matter—by people to volunteer. That would be greatly exacerbated if the smallest charities, of the kind which I have described, were brought within the new regulatory framework.
Furthermore, small charities with an income of less than £1,000 per year which have registered voluntarily will not be able to comply. I take one example. That

411
will affect a large number of branches of the Women's Institute. What conceivable public advantage can there be in imposing requirements of that sort on small branches of the Women's Institute, particularly when, if there is not compliance, criminal sanctions would apply for a breach of the Act.
Lastly, and perhaps most important of all, what will happen when those thousands of returns begin to arrive at the Charity Commission? Who will read them? Will officials be given the responsibility of carefully analysing the returns of a small branch of the Women's Institute in the North-East of England or wherever it may be? As we are well aware, the problem is that the Charity Commission has been scandalously under-resourced for a substantial period of time. The noble Earl will no doubt say, as he said in Committee, that the Government have increased the resources available by a substantial amount. That is true. But that is in the context of a situation where major new responsibilities are being imposed on the Charity Commission.
In my view, the consequence of allowing the Bill to remain in its present form is that those thousands of returns will have to be submitted, with the consequent risk in regard to the trustees of a breach of the criminal law if they fail to do so. There will be no machinery within the Charity Commission to analyse the returns.
The amendment would represent a substantial improvement in the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl, notwithstanding the position he took in Committee, will see the advantage of proceeding in this way. We all want a satisfactory regime for large charities. The question here is different. It is whether we insist on the same regime for charities with a minuscule annual income. That is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I share the bewilderment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in regard to the Government's attitude to the amendment. When one looks at Section 4 of the 1960 Act one sees that subsection (4) says,
"The following charities are not required to be registered, that is to say—

(a) … exempt charity;

(b) any charity which is excepted by order or regulations;

(c) any charity having neither any permanent endowment … nor the use and occupation of any land",

and whose income does not exceed in aggregate more than £1,000 a year. The Government have already accepted that charities with an income of less than £1,000 a year are in a separate category and are to be classed with exempt charities. We see in Clause 24 of the Bill that exempt charities are indeed relieved from the obligations in Clauses 19 to 23 but those whose income does not in aggregate amount to more than £1,000 a year are not relieved. For the life of me I cannot see why not. It is absurd that there should be erected this enormous bureaucratic edifice in relation to charities whose income in some cases will be minuscule.
Perhaps I may add an additional point to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. If the Government have their way, small charities—those with an income of under £1,000 a year—will have to
412
pay for the privilege of filing returns which, as far as I can see, will be put into a cupboard, if one large enough can be found, to gather dust. Not only does that seem to be an imposition but it is verging on impudence.
I hope that the noble Earl will say that it is an issue he will reconsider. Logic and common sense are on the side of the amendment and I am happy to support it.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I simplistically support the amendment but only with the practical knowledge of a small trust for a scouts' hall in the local village of which I am, whether I like it or not, a trustee because I own the house. With me as a trustee is the chairman of the parish council and the rector, who is kind enough to act as secretary. We have a few investments bringing in a few hundred pounds—under £1,000. It would be absurd for any complication to rest on us and our poor rector as a result of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, Clause 24 does three things. Exempt charities which are not within the commissioner's jurisdiction but are subject to other, often statutory, regimes are relieved of the accounting requirements provided by the Bill. Excepted charities, which are not registered voluntarily, are relieved of the duty to prepare an annual report and submit it to the commissioners, but they are subject to the rest of the accounting regime. Excepted charities which have chosen to register must prepare and submit an annual report and they are also subject to the rest of the accounting regime. The amendment would have the same effect as regards exempt charities but it would relieve excepted charities, whether or not they have chosen to register, from all the duties of the accounting and reporting regime.
The purpose of this part of the Bill is to ensure that there is an adequate accounting regime for all charities and one which is appropriate to their circumstances. Exempt charities are outside the jurisdiction of the commissioners and have their own, usually statutory, framework for their supervision. Excepted charities are subject to the commissioners' jurisdiction. The only difference between them and other charities is that they do not need to register. It is right that they should keep detailed accounting records, prepare annual accounts, comply with the requirements as to the form and content of those accounts and be subject to audit or independent examination. If an excepted charity is not registered, there is no reason for the commissioners to receive an annual report or accounts. Excepted charities which are not registered are therefore relieved of that requirement unless the commissioners so request.
That is the philosophy behind the clause. I understand the anxiety expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Richard, about charities which have an income of less than £1,000 a year. We are willing to look at the matter again. If an excepted charity chooses to register, then in my view it should do what other registered charities do and report to the commissioners. If it does not opt for registration then perhaps that is a different matter. I shall certainly reconsider the point to see whether we can meet the anxiety expressed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is most satisfactory. I believe he recognises that there is anxiety in many parts of the House over the point. Apart from anything else, given the many new major responsibilities which will be picked up by the Charity Commission, it is desirable to remove from them a wholly unnecessary burden of work. I welcome the noble Earl's reply. If he would like informal discussions between now and Third Reading I am sure—I was going to say "my noble friend" Lord Richard, but that may place us in difficulty—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and myself will be glad to meet the noble Earl to discuss the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Divestment of charity property held by official custodian for charities]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 28B:
Page 25, leave out lines 18 to 33.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships look at page 25 it will be seen that this is a point we have covered before and I can therefore deal with it shortly.
If one says that such-and-such a body may direct X and Y and then go on to say, "without prejudice to the generality of what has gone before", the same body may, I repeat, direct A, B and C. Then it must follow that the particularity falls within the generality. It is unnecessary to set out the particularity here running to 16 lines. In this Bill I believe that runs to several pages and in the statute book the formula runs to dozens of pages.
I do not expect the noble Viscount to believe me because I said, although in the Pickwickian sense, that he had been speaking in the tones of a gauleiter ordering the destruction of Lidice. He was told the same thing by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Therefore, I emphasise that what I have said really must follow. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, here we are again on a similar amendment to one that was dealt with before. Although my noble friends Lord Brentford and Lord Jenkin may have seemed to agree with the noble and learned Lord, luckily for me they did not use quite the same terms as he did. As I said before concerning an earlier amendment, the list of what directions may be included by the commissioners under this clause is not exhaustive; it is not the point to make it exhaustive. The noble and learned Lord may well consider that it is unnecessary to amplify the general power to give directions by the inclusion of such specific examples.
I do not agree. It is important to put beyond doubt that the commissioners may authorise the Official Custodian for Charities in this way to take steps which will be essential to the orderly and efficient divestment of charity property held by him. I hope that I have addressed the point made by the noble and learned Lord, as indeed I hope that I have addressed the point made by him on an earlier occasion. I suspect that he
414
is not going to agree with me. I say again that it is not our intention to clutter up the Bill with unnecessary lines. However, we thought it important to spell out what the directions are. As I have said before, the list is not exhaustive.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is quite obvious that we are going to go on inflating the statute book. On a previous occasion, but not on this point, I mentioned Lidice. On this occasion another military situation comes to mind. Oliver Stanley once described Glenville Hall as showing that indomitable courage in defence of an indefensible situation that has led to some of the most glorious disasters in the history of the British Army. The dear shades of Glenville Hall have come to inform the noble Viscount. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Provisions supplementary to s.29]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 28C:
Page 26, line 22, leave out ("the appropriate part of that amount") and insert ("such part of that amount as they may specify.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a different point, but a very short one. It concerns a question of drafting. The amendment is to make paragraph (b) read:
"to pay such part of that amount as they may specify to each of two or more other charities so specified".
That is shorter and, as far as I can see, it means exactly the same thing. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has suggested that the Bill as drafted can be simplified by the amendments that he has moved. Clause 29(8) (a) and (b) is drafted in such a way as to make it clear that the commissioners' direction may specify both the charities to benefit and the amount each charity is to receive. The wording also makes it clear that the amount to be distributed under the direction need not be divided in equal shares between the charities concerned.
In making directions under this provision the commissioners will have regard to the purposes of the dormant charities and the purposes of the recipient charities. In some circumstances it may not be appropriate for each recipient charity to receive the same amount. The wording of the noble and learned Lord's first amendment does not make entirely clear that the commissioners may give each of the charities mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) a different proportion of the total amount.
Nevertheless, I accept that the subsection may be simplified. I am prepared to take the matter away and tidy up the drafting before the next stage of the Bill. I hope that that will show the noble and learned Lord that I can be easily persuaded by reasonable argument. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment. We shall bring one forward at the next stage.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I did not quite catch what the noble Viscount said. Did he say that he accepted the amendment in principle and that he would himself bring forward an amendment?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord; I did indeed say that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I agree that the drafting makes clear exactly what the noble Viscount said and so does my draft. It achieves exactly the same object and effect but much more shortly. The noble Viscount said that the draft I put forward does not make clear that the commissioners may distribute in unequal shares.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord give way? My noble friend on the Front Bench has accepted your amendment in principle.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I apologise to the noble Viscount for my deafness. I am very much obliged for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28D not moved.]
Clause 32 [Restrictions on dispositions of charity land]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 29, line 37, after ("(3)") insert ("or (4A)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 and 34. In Committee there was some anxiety that the regime which was imposed by Clause 32 on trustees for disposals of charity land should be more flexible in the case of short leases. I accepted then that the arguments in favour of relaxing the regime to short leases were strong. I have no wish either to be inflexible or to saddle trustees with undue and burdensome requirements which are simply not justified by transactions at hand. These amendments therefore introduce a less strict regime for those kinds of leases.
On the other hand, we need to ensure that trustees act responsibly in the administration of their trust. Therefore, their duty to get the best rent available on the grant of a lease is properly reflected in these new provisions which will replace Section 29 of the Charities Act 1960. For leases of seven years or less these amendments will allow trustees to take advice more appropriate to the transaction concerned from someone who need not be a qualified surveyor but who they reasonably consider has the appropriate expertise to give them advice before deciding whether the terms are the best available. Such advice need not be in the form of a written report.
We have had to settle on a length of lease to which a less strict regime will apply. I have suggested seven years. Any longer period will attract the need for advice from a qualified surveyor and the need to advertise if so advised. Leases of charity land range enormously in their variety. They may be very simple, such as an occasional letting, or a temporary letting
416
for residential purposes to a very complex building lease. Leases of quite short duration may also attract statutory security of tenure which may endure for a period well beyond that which was originally granted. The term of a lease may therefore not necessarily be a good guide to the quality of the advice which is required in a given case.
I consider seven years to be about right, taking all these factors into account. A lease of more than seven years represents a disposition of a substantial interest in a charity's property which would continue to attract the stricter regime. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the concession that these amendments represent. In the spirit of brevity which is now prevailing I shall say no more.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 29, line 39, leave out ("Those requirements are that") and insert ("Except where the proposed disposition is the granting of such a lease as is mentioned in subsection (4A),").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 29, line 48, at end insert ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 31 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 and 35.
In Committee some concern was expressed that charities with large bodies of trustees, who may meet infrequently and may also carry out large numbers of property transactions in a year, might have difficulties in complying with the requirement in subsection (3) (d) of Clause 32 for a disposition to be approved in advance by a duly constituted meeting of the trustees.
I can see the weight of that argument. I have no doubt that it is right that trustees must have the final responsibility for approving the terms of any sale and in seeing that the new statutory requirements have been complied with. But this need not be at a meeting of the trustees. The governing instrument of the charity may contain powers to delegate certain functions of the trustees to a committee of their number. We see no reason why the trustees should not set the policy for disposals and then delegate decisions in this area to a committee of their number who would report back to the trustee body at regular intervals.
I see no difficulty in removing the requirement in subsection (3) (d), and this amendment does that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 30, line 2, leave out ("of the proposed agreement") and insert ("on which the disposition is proposed to be made").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, questioned during the Committee stage whether the provisions of Clause 32 are intended to cover sales by auction. My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked whether it covered sales by tender. The answer to both those questions is in the affirmative.
My amendment to Clause 32(3) (c) is designed to put this beyond doubt. In practice it will allow trustees or a sub-committee of the trustees under delegated powers, when selling by auction or tender, to set a reserve selling price on the property which is to be sold. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 30, line 3, leave out from ("charity") to end of line 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 30, line 18, at end insert:
("(4A) Where the proposed disposition is the granting of a lease for a term ending not more than seven years after it is granted (other than one granted wholly or partly in consideration of a fine), the charity trustees must, before entering into an agreement for the lease—

(a) obtain and consider the advice on the proposed disposition of a person who is reasonably believed by the trustees to have the requisite ability and practical experience to provide them with competent advice on the proposed disposition; and

(b) decide that they are satisfied, having considered that person's advice, that the terms on which the disposition is proposed to be made are the best that can reasonably be obtained for the charity.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his action on these matters. This amendment is related to an amendment proposed in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester concerning short leases. I am certain that the new clause before us now and that which we shall consider in a few moments will be of real practical benefit to Church trustees and to others besides. I thank the noble Earl for his kind assistance in these matters.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 30, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 30, line 35, after ("if") insert:
("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 37. In Committee, in response to an amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, I agreed to look at whether we could mitigate the provisions of subsection (6) of Clause 32 in the case of short temporary lettings by trustees. That provision requires public notice of a disposal of charity land which is held under its trusts subject to some specie use. I have considered this suggestion carefully and I have concluded that the balance of the argument is in favour of disapplying the requirements of subsection (6) in the case of short leases of less than two years. This amendment therefore excludes leases of up to two years from the effect of subsection (6).
The principle that public notice should be given in these cases is a right one and trustees should be
418
required to consider representations if made. However, I do see that where such property is only temporarily vacant pending the appointment, say, of a new beneficiary or for some other reason, to insist on the rigour of public notice could be counterproductive. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 30, line 37, at end insert ("; or
(b) the disposition is the granting of a lease for a term ending not more than two years after it is granted (other than one granted wholly or partly in consideration of a fine).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Chorley Lord Chorley moved Amendment No. 37A:
Page 30, line 37, at end insert ("; or
(bb) the Charity Commissioners are satisfied, on the application of any charity, that it is requisite that public notice should not be given to such dispositions of land by that charity as may be specified in an order made by the Commissioners and such an order may:

(i) include such conditions as the Commissioners think fit;

(ii) be expressed to have effect without limit of time, or for a specified period only;

(iii) be revoked or varied by a further order.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide a mechanism for dealing with an unreasonable and unnecessary burden that Clause 32(6) will impose on certain types of large property-owning charities, but without destroying the purpose of the subsection.
I have particularly in mind the case of the National Trust. As its chairman, I therefore have an immediate interest to declare even though it is of a distinctly non-pecuniary nature. At this stage I should like to thank the noble Earl and his officials who have helped us at earlier stages of the Bill on a number of points. However, there remains this one issue which I hope we are on the way to resolving. It would appear that not only the National Trust is concerned about Clause 32(6); the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds would also be adversely affected.
The problems so far as concerns the National Trust can be put quite simply. The statutory objects of the trust are to own and manage property for conservation. The great bulk of that property is held inalienably; that is to say, it may never be sold. In this respect the National Trust and the National Trust for Scotland are unique in this Bill. The trust is now a very large landowner and I feel that I should give some figures to demonstrate the problem. We own, for example, more than 6,000 inalienable cottages; we have more than 1,200 farm tenancies and there are wayleaves, easements and so forth. Altogether we estimate that we have about 10,000 separate let properties that would be affected by subsection (6). Properties are let for relatively short terms—the cottages, typically, for eight years.
What all this means is that we are dealing with up to 1,000 dispositions, to use the phrase, a year. In other words, we would be required to issue about 1,000 public notices every year. That would involve heavy expenditure in advertising, in staff time, which

419
is expensive, and in management delay. And one is bound to ask: to what end? These are matters—I emphasise this—of routine property management in almost all cases of modest size; for example, cottage lease renewals. I find it hard to believe that advertising would serve in this respect any useful purpose.
I submit that the requirement is unreasonable and surely not what was intended when drafting this part of the Bill. Its administration would be onerous and, perhaps more to the point, would divert resources from our proper charitable objects. I repeat, all that is in respect of inalienable property which is property which cannot be sold in any event.
I do not seek to challenge the principle of subsection (6), nor am I seeking special treatment. I am concerned that this degree of detail—and subsection (6) is only one example—in primary legislation is a rather awkward strait-jacket. It prevents the evolution of regulation according to changing circumstances and social attitudes. After all, it may be another 30 years before we have another Charities Bill.
I suggest that my amendment will help to introduce a modest degree of flexibility on one particular but vexatious point. On application by a charity, it would allow the Charity Commissioners to exercise a discretion to modify subsection (6) on whatever terms and conditions they see fit to impose. Nor, so far as I can see, is the amendment breaking new ground. All it does is to echo the provisions of the Bill, in much the same wording, regarding public collections where Clause 72 gives similar discretionary powers to the Charity Commissioners. That is, I submit, a proper function of a regulatory body. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It seems that impracticability and expense are the unwanted side-effects of Clause 32(6). In light of the detailed argument put forward, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to reconsider the matter and allow a degree of flexibility.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for putting forward that point. I shall certainly consider what she said. I shall also consider the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. However, I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Baroness on her position on the Front Bench. I believe that this is the first occasion upon which she has spoken from the Dispatch Box. Her reputation has gone in advance of her. We know of her great expertise in the legal sphere. All I can say is that I am even more alarmed at finding her with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, than I was when it was just the noble Lord on his own; and, indeed, that was a frightening enough experience for any one person. Nevertheless, we are delighted to see the noble Baroness operating from the Dispatch Box.
Perhaps I may just explain the point behind subsection (6) of Clause 32. It provides additional requirements to be undertaken by charity trustees in disposing of land held in specie; that is, on trusts which specify the purposes for which the land must be used
420
within the overall objects of the charity. Such land is often central to the existence of the charity and the disposition could therefore radically alter the nature of the charity and its ability to provide continuing benefits.
It is right that trustees should be subject to additional safeguards to ensure that the charity's property is not disposed of in an improper way. That is what subsection (6) sets out to do by ensuring that trustees give public notice of their intention to dispose of the property in question, and so on.
I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. However, I can tell him that we have no wish to create an additional safeguard in Clause 32(6) to smother legitimate property management by charity trustees in red tape. The noble Lord was kind enough to forewarn me some two days ago of this amendment; indeed, we talked about it. However, I hope that he will understand that in the time available I have been unable to give full consideration to his concern. Nevertheless, it is a matter of importance and I shall see that the matter is addressed before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I certainly accept at least the spirit of subsection (6) and the argument about land in specie. I should also apologise for not being able to converse with him earlier on the matter. However, that was not entirely my fault.
If it is thought necessary for good administration to sort the wheat from the chaff, I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the Minister's draftsman to find a formula. Various possibilities spring to mind. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 31, line 2, at end insert ("; or
(c) to the granting, by or on behalf of a charity and in accordance with its trusts, of a lease to any beneficiary under those trusts where the lease—

(i) is granted otherwise than for the best rent that can reasonably be obtained; and

(ii) is intended to enable the demised premises to be occupied for the purposes, or any particular purposes, of the charity.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. The amendments will exclude from the provisions of Clause 32 leases of property to beneficiaries of a charity for occupation under its trusts. They address concerns raised by your Lordships in Committee and by a number of charities which provide subsidised accommodation for their beneficiaries.
I undertook to consider those representations.
A number of charities have trusts which provide for leases to be granted to beneficiaries who occupy charity property in furtherance of its objects. Such charities may provide charitable relief housing for the poor or others disadvantaged in society. Very often such leases are for less than a market rent.
It would be entirely inappropriate for the provisions of Clause 32 to apply to those cases. The clause is designed to ensure that the trustees obtain the

421
best price when disposing of charity property. Where the lease is to a beneficiary of the charity, that criterion clearly should not apply. I beg to move.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I hope that I may again be forgiven for asking a simplistic question, but as a trustee of a large charitable housing trust whose duty it is to provide houses for people on low incomes at the lowest possible rents and which has to walk on the knife edge between secure rents and assured rents, the situation can often be complicated because by trying to provide houses at low rents we may have to go below market prices. The wording of the provision fills me with alarm, although in its context it may not mean what I believe it to mean.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the wording should not fill my noble friend with alarm. The amendment would allow the beneficiary of a trust to pay a rent which is lower than the market rent.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 31, line 8, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section shall permit the sale, lease or other disposal without an order of the court or of the Commissioners of any land and buildings held in trust for use as and for almshouses unless such land and buildings are held by or in trust for a charity which is a registered housing association.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I turn now to the question of the disposal of land in relation to almshouse charities. I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 42. I agree in principle with Clause 32 as it stands in relation to charities as a whole, but almshouses are in a rather special category. Their assets—their sites, buildings and so forth—could on paper be extremely valuable, but the income derived therefrom is probably small by virtue of the fact that their endowment is probably not as great in real terms today as the originator intended.
Secondly, the retired people who live in the almshouses are not called upon to contribute as much in weekly maintenance as they might otherwise do because they would be caused financial hardship. The result is that the trustees of such charities find themselves in a difficulty because they have valuable assets but little income with which to maintain the buildings.
There are some trustees who have known, lived, loved and worked among almshouses and for whom they are their raison d'être. However, one can foresee a possibility that in the future trustees who are there by definition under the deed of trust or who are appointed ex officio have little connection with the place. They may say, "We would be doing ourselves a great service if we were to dispose of our buildings and our assets. We will collect a large capital sum and generate an enormous amount of income which we can distribute among the poor and needy". It all sounds right and proper in some ways and people would benefit financially.
Nevertheless, I suspect that many residents of almshouse charities would far rather have a secure roof over their heads and pass the remainder of their days in the area where they were brought up and
422
which they have known all their lives than find that there is a risk of having to move elsewhere. They may have to live in what to them would be a rather impersonal building and they would merely benefit to the tune of filthy lucre which would supplement their existence.
I believe it would be good if the Charity Commissioners were not only empowered but were directed under the Bill to keep a watching brief over the actions of trustees who might wish to sell or put up for mortgage—which is one stage before selling—property in relation to almshouse charities. There is no great onus; the trustees have a duty and within the law they can do all kinds of things. Nonetheless, it would be helpful if the provision could be continued, under the system that exists at the moment, where the Charity Commissioners need to keep a watching brief and need to give their approval to such proposals. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I wish to add a few words to the cogent arguments put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. When looking just at almshouses, the first point to take into consideration is that the residents are especially vulnerable because of their age and financial circumstances. Secondly, almshouses provide independent homes, usually for life or until a resident goes into a nursing home, hospital or some other place.
The amendment seeks to provide a degree of security on which the almshouse resident can rely. It is an essential feature that the residents do not have security of tenure and therefore the sale of a building or the acquiring of a mortgage, with which the second amendment deals and which inevitably involves the risk of a sale, is threatening to the security of almshouse residents. It is from the point of view of the residents of the almshouses that I put forward the argument in favour of Amendment No. 39 and the second amendment dealing with mortgages.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I have listened carefully and, I hope, sympathetically to what has been said. However, with regret, I have to say that I find it less than easy to accede to the arguments put forward by the noble Viscount and my noble friend. Almshouses have special and peculiar problems. Almsmen and almswomen are vulnerable and frequently aged people, and are especially at risk in terms of charity law. But so are many other categories of charities. Church schools, for example, present difficult problems and whole categories of housing associations have special difficulties.
I am afraid that this evening I have heard nothing that convinces me that in respect of this part of Clause 32 almshouses have established a unique claim for special treatment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I take the same view. As the noble Viscount knows, I warmly supported him when this general issue came before the Public Bill Committee. However, I am uneasy about establishing a special statutory position for almshouses as distinct from the many other worthy bodies

423
who could claim the need for some special statutory assistance. I do not wish to close the door on this approach, but I start from a position of being more than a little sceptical. I shall be interested to hear the noble Earl's comments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I appreciate the anxiety that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, feel as regards almshouses and the residents within them who are the people for whom the almshouses were in the first instance provided. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, that no argument has been put forward this evening to suggest that the trustees of almshouse charities should be considered differently to any other charitable trustees.
In these amendments we are being asked to treat the trustees of almshouse charities as people who cannot, unlike other trustees, be trusted to deal with their property in accordance with the requirements set out in Clauses 32 and 34. The amendments will not prevent the trustees from disposing of almshouses. They will merely require that the Commissioners give consent to the disposal. The Commissioners cannot prevent trustees from dealing with their property in the way that they consider best serves the interests of the charity. If the disposal of the almshouses would best serve the interests of the charity, the Commissioners cannot prevent the trustees from disposing of the almshouses. The Commissioners can only prevent the trustees from disposing of the almshouses if, in so doing, the trustees are transgressing the legal duties of their charitable trust. If the trustees have decided to sell then they cannot, and ought not to, be interfered with in exercising their discretion as trustees.
The requirements in Clauses 32 and 34 have been designed to replicate as far as possible the requirements that the Commissioners currently insist on from trustees. Indeed the purpose of these clauses is to allow trustees, when they dispose of land, to continue doing what they now do but without the need to involve the Commissioners as supervisors of every transaction. Most trustees are competent to be left to their own devices in this way and I do not believe that there is any reason why almshouse trustees, among all trustees—the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, mentioned this—should be singled out as needing the continued supervision of the Commissioners. I do not believe that there is any real danger of the trustees of an almshouse charity acting in a way, with respect to their property, which would fundamentally prejudice the interests of their beneficiaries.
Property of any charity which is held upon trusts stipulating that it is to be used for the purposes of the charity will in any case be subject to subsection (6) of Clause 32 where it is sold or leased for more than two years. This subsection requires the trustees to give public notice of any disposal, inviting representations to be made to them. The trustees must consider the representations before proceeding with the disposal.
424
As most almshouses will be subject to this requirement, almshouse trustees will already have to go through more hoops than other trustees.
One of the fundamental themes of this Bill is that wherever possible trustees should be allowed to exercise the duties of their office without undue bureaucratic interference. I fear that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret is pushing in the other direction with this amendment. I hope therefore my noble friend will appreciate that this matter is best left unaltered.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for such a concise and detailed reply to the point I tried to make. I am not entirely sure that I quite follow the point that at present almshouse trustees can dispose of their properties without the positive agreement of the Charity Commissioners. However, I stand to be corrected on that point. I am sorry but I have forgotten exactly the point the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, made. It is clear, however, that this matter has not found favour in all quarters. In Committee we discussed other aspects of this matter and my noble friend has considered the arguments we made. Perhaps there could be a further reconsideration of this issue. It is a safety valve which I think is necessary, However, at the end of the day if the House and my noble friend in particular and his advisers feel that this point is unnecessary I will not push it. Therefore I withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for his kindness in looking into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Supplementary provisions relating to dispositions of charity land]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 40 and 41:
Page 31, line 18, leave out ("subsection (8) (a) or (b)") and insert ("paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (8)").
Page 31, line 21, leave out ("either of those provisions,") and insert ("any of those paragraphs,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34: [Restrictions on charging charity property]:
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Removal of requirements under statutory provisions for consent to dealings with charity land]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 34, line 14, at end insert:
("(2A) For the purposes of section 2(1) of the Education Act 1973, "new provision" may, on the application of the relevant diocesan authorities, or of the trustees, or former trustees, of the school concerned, or of not less than six persons over eighteen years of age residing in the relevant area of benefit include—

(a) the sale of the school at less than the best price obtainable in the open market to a charity operating in that area of benefit and whose purposes serve it;

(b) the use of part of the proceeds of any sale for a charity operating in that area of benefit and whose purposes serve it.

(2B) Subsection (2A) above shall apply only where the purposes of the charity referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above include the provision of a village hall or community centre, the education or development of those of pre-school

425
age, activities for the development of young people or other educational purposes for local benefit and where the Secretary of State is satisfied that—

(a) the local community would be disadvantaged as a result of the sale of the school at the best price obtainable in the open market, and

(b) the premises had been used for charitable purposes other than purposes of a school for the benefit of the local community, or

(c) there are charitable educational purposes, other than use as a school, for the benefit of the local community that could continue to be served by the premises.

(2C) The amount of any discount or proceeds of sale to be so used shall be determined in the light of the circumstances above and the original nature of the trust.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope—perhaps I should say pray—that it will be a privilege to move this amendment on behalf of those who have put their names to it but who are unable to be present tonight.
The purpose of the amendment is to make it possible that when a village school becomes redundant and is put up for sale some of the proceeds can, if the Secretary of State is so minded, be kept in the village for similar purposes. If my noble friend is able to accept that objective, I should be happy to accept redrafting.
A similar amendment to this was moved by my noble friend Lord Renton on 10th December. To sum up that discussion, my noble friends Lord Renton and Earl Ferrers agreed to disagree on the grounds that it was too widely drafted. If I had been allowed my way—and I suspect I would have been supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—I should have stuck to the hard line, keeping all the money for any cause whatsoever in the village; but I was persuaded, not least by my noble friend Earl Ferrers, that such a line was unreasonable. I should like to put on record the time and trouble that my noble friend has taken and the number of letters that he has written to try to explain the problems of the Home Office over this amendment. I am grateful to him.
The amendment before your Lordships this evening is a very moderate one. It spells out quite clearly that any benefit remaining in the village would have to be for similar educationally based charities; and that the local community would be disadvantaged by the sale of the school; and that the school had previously been used for charitable purposes other than as a school. Those conditions are contained in items (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment. I hope that your Lordships will read them carefully. They are very narrowly drawn.
The original money for many, if not most, church village schools was raised in the village for the benefit of education in that village. Broadly speaking, the trusts are of three kinds: one, those that were for education only and for no other purpose; two, those that were for education in the village; and three, those that were for education and for other purposes for the benefit of the village.
As far as the last is concerned, I accept that the Charity Commissioners may, if they wish, divert all—the word is "all"—of the proceeds of that sale back to the village. I believe that that fact of all or nothing is a deterrent, and that it perhaps frightens the church education authorities who feel they are going to lose all so they have to keep everything. My amendment would rectify that all-or-nothing approach. However,
426
because of the Education Act of 1973 it is not possible to keep in the village any of the proceeds of the first two types of trusts which this amendment also addresses.
In practice that results in all the money leaving the village, maybe for the capital cost of some faraway school which no member of that village does or even can attend. That just cannot be right. That was just not in the mind of the original donors, many of whom, I suspect, are your Lordships' ancestors. I suspect that they are listening now from below—who knows but that some of them may be listening from above.
This amendment would correct that blatant injustice by allowing the Secretary of State for Education to sell the school at less than its market price to a similar village charity—I have already spelt out the meaning of the word "similar"; it cannot be the local disco club—or allow some of the proceeds of the sale to be retained, again for similar purposes, in the village.
I suggest that this is a very mild amendment which only allows and does not force the Secretary of State to direct that some of the proceeds should remain in the village, so helping to prevent further rural decay and allowing the village to become a viable, living, working unit. That point was forcefully made by the report Faith in the Countryside which my noble friend Lord Prior so ably produced. This amendment is in line with the recommendations of that report, but milder.
I hope therefore that your Lordships will feel able to support this modest amendment, not least because the loss of a village school can be the final blow to a village that may already have lost its pub, its farm, its shop, its church and its rector, so leaving no place for people to meet and get rid of their problems. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is not only a mild amendment, it is a virtual giveaway. I do not think that the indulgent tones of the noble Lord are justified when one considers that the Church has had the school for probably a century. An enormous amount of maintenance has come from the state and yet it has been a denominational school. The Church of England has cornered religion to its own advancement and then required the state to maintain its schools. When they are sold, like a property developer the Church retains all the proceeds for some purpose removed from the village. Surely to heaven—should I say heaven?—it can spare more than a little for the good of the village which it is about to leave. I do not suggest that it is a voluntary leaving, but the school will be left behind and presumably some people will be disadvantaged on that account.
Certainly I support the amendment very much. I wish that the noble Lord who moved it had shown a little more aggro in his claim.
The Earl of Gainsborough: My Lords, like the noble Lord who spoke to it so eloquently, I should like to support the amendment. No doubt some of your Lordships have been in the situation of owning

427
property in villages and have been associated with those villages going back many generations. It is very important to remember that, if we are not careful, nice country communities will be left to become entirely dormitory areas.
Some of the buildings have been in use for many years for educational purposes. If they are now redundant because they are not adequate for those purposes, they will be lost to the villages unless some such provision is made. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, indicated that the wording of the amendment may have to be changed. If some wording could be found to achieve his aim, which was so well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I feel that this House and the noble Earl will do well to give it some consideration.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. I was rector of a small country village at the time when the village school was closed. The result was not only a shift in transport arrangements with children being bussed to another village, but the removal of one of the last focal points in the village. It irretrievably changed the dynamics of that local village. I am quite clear that the amendment touches a raw social nerve.
However, I do not believe that the amendment as it stands is acceptable. In moving it the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, stated that it was in line with the recommendations of the Archbishop's Commission's Report Faith in the Countryside. However, in some regards the amendment goes far beyond what is recommended in that report. The details of the report have not necessarily been accepted by the Church of England. However, the report recommended that such provision should apply to rural areas. The amendment as drawn applies across the board and is as applicable in inner cities as in plush suburbia.
The report suggested that the diocese, which includes the parish, should put forward certain proposals. The amendment suggests that the procedural ball could be set rolling by six local people. The report recommended that the sale proceeds might in part be made available for the continuance of Christian mission. However the amendment goes well beyond that by stating that the sale proceeds might go to a charity. With due respect to the noble Lord who moved the amendment, it does not state that it should be only for educational charities. I believe that it allows for social charities, commendable though those are.
I have a further anxiety. The Secretary of State for Education will be required to exercise a responsibility which goes well beyond what he might consider appropriate to his office.
I believe that there is more flexibility in the present arrangements than is often recognised. When the Secretary of State makes a Section 2 order a proportion of the sale proceeds of a redundant school quite properly goes to the continuation of education elsewhere in the locality. Where it can be shown that the former school was used for Sunday school, or other such activities, the Secretary of State is normally likely to approve that 3/14ths of the sale proceeds
428
—which sounds to me rather like what used to be called a vulgar fraction—can be used for a local Sunday school charity which can be created at the time of the closure. When the trust deeds or the previous practice allow, and when there is no urgent need for additional money for church schools in the diocese, it is possible for the diocese to put forward proposals which release quite a proportion of the proceeds to the local community. That has been done in a number of cases. One way forward, where the trust deeds make it possible, is for the building to be leased to the local community.
There is more flexibility than is often recognised. But at the end of the day most cases are governed by the trust deeds which make it clear that the assets are for church educational purposes or, as the 1973 Act puts it, to enable the Church of England or any other religious denomination to participate more effectively in the administration of the statutory system of public education. That need remains because Church and state are in partnership in the education system of this country. I do not wish to see money given for educational purposes being alienated for other uses, however laudable.
Noble Lords may like to know that discussions have been taking place about the matter. A forthcoming publication from the Church of England Board of Education will draw attention to the flexibility that often exists in the present arrangements and will make suggestions about how those concerned can make approaches in the hope of moving towards a settlement which more readily meets the educational requirements of trust deeds and local aspirations. That may not always be possible because of the trust deeds. However, we are trying to ensure that where there is flexibility that is more widely known. I have no doubt that the issue is real. But, for the reasons that I pointed out earlier, the amendment as drafted is far too wide and would land us in considerable difficulties. I hope that for those reasons, and for others, it will be resisted.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. At one stage I approached the whole subject with a fairly open mind. However, the more I have listened to the debate the more—I shall not say the more convinced I am—there appears to be considerable merit and force in the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. It appears to be right that in the circumstances which the amendment covers some provision should be made to ensure that at least part of the money raised should remain in the village for the benefit of the villagers. I should find unacceptable a contrary view.
Perhaps the drafting of the amendment is not as felicitous as it could be. I see the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, nodding his legal head in agreement. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is the second signatory to the amendment. If it were drafted by the noble and learned Lord I should not have one word to say about it, yea or nay.
The amendment is important. In some ways it is one of the more important that we have discussed

429
tonight. I hope that the noble Earl will help the House. If not it may be an occasion on which the opinion of the House must be sought.
10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I could not help being amused when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that perhaps the drafting of the amendment is inadequate and that my noble friend Lord Stanley nodded his head in assent. Earlier my noble friend advised your Lordships to read the wording of the amendment most carefully because it had been drafted most carefully. One cannot have it both ways.
I understand the problem. It is a vexed question. I understand the views of those people who believe that if a school built some years ago by a benefactor for the education of the children of the village is no longer required and must be sold then the people of the village should profit from the sale. There are two points to be made; two strands of charitable feeling. The first is that the school was built to educate the children and the second that the school was built for the village. One must therefore ask: what is the trust under which the charity operates? It is for educational purposes. The argument goes that if the village or the authorities cannot maintain the school in the village and the school must be sold, the proceeds should be put towards the education of the children who will no longer be educated in that village but in some other village. Therefore, the proceeds of the sale of the school ought to go to the continuance of the children's education.
My noble friend's amendment takes a different slant. If, for instance, the school must be sold it will be up to the trustees who sell it to obtain the best possible price. If they do so the school can be sold to anyone inside or outside the village. In his amendment my noble friend suggests that there could be reasons for the trustees of the school to accept a price lower than the market price. If such a price is offered, and it is proposed to accept it, by a charity which has the same purposes as the charity which owns the school the school can be purchased by that new charity at less than the market price with the consent of the Commissioners. However, if it is to be purchased by a charity which does not have the same purpose as the original charity which owns the school, the Charity Commissioners cannot give their permission.
My noble friend seeks to say, "Here is a school which is to be sold. It is to be sold for less than the market price so the charity originally set up for educational purposes will receive less than it should do and, another charity, which is used for purposes other than educational purposes, can benefit from that."
My noble friend's amendment states that provided the new charity has education as one of its purposes, it should be allowed to purchase the building at a price which is lower than the market rate. I do not believe that is fair. My noble friend may wish to consider the example of an organisation in the village which uses the church or school as a day-care centre for the elderly. That may be the purpose of the building during the day, but it may be used later For
430
educational purposes. It is not right that that charity should be allowed to purchase the building at below the market rate.
I understand the anxiety that it should be possible to sell a discontinued school at less than the market price to a charity which serves that same locality but which does not have the same, although it could have similar, purposes. The difficulty is that whereas at present the school must be sold for educational purposes, this amendment provides that the charity which would benefit by virtue of the purchase at less than the full value may have purposes other than educational ones.
The amendment refers to a charity whose purposes include:
"The provision of a village hall or community centre, the education or development of those of pre-school age, activities for the development of young people or other educational purposes for local benefit".
The children who formerly attended the discontinued school must of course be educated elsewhere locally. It is in their interests and the interests of the locality generally that the sale proceeds of their former school should be used as far as possible for educational purposes and that the amount of those proceeds should be as large as possible.
The amendment raises complex issues which I do not believe should be tackled in the Bill. Even if that were to prove desirable in the future, it would be necessary to ensure that the interests of the church bodies are fully taken into account and that proposals are drawn up in consultation with them.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford pointed out in a carefully argued speech that the Bill does not have the general agreement of the Church. Moreover, although the Archbishop's Commission's report suggested this provision, that does not mean that the report has been accepted by the Church. He quite correctly drew attention to the fact that if my noble friend's amendment is accepted, it will give the Secretary of State for Education powers which greatly exceed those which he has at present by virtue of the fact that the amendment would allow the proceeds of sale of a building presently used for educational purposes to be used for educational and other purposes.
There is no evidence that the Church authorities support the amendment. The right reverend Prelate does not support it. The Diocesan Board of Education is worried that without an increase in the sums raised from the sale of former church schools, their ability to provide education in rural areas will be severely affected.
For all those reasons, my noble friend's amendment would be a mistake. I can see why he has tabled it, and I understand his anxieties as regards those people in the past who have given money for the purposes of village education. However, to suggest that the sale of a village school should be permitted at less than the market rate in order to provide the village with a building to be used for other than educational purposes, and that therefore it would be possible to benefit from the purchase at less than the market rate, would not be fair. I ask my noble friend seriously to consider that.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support. I did not go far enough for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, but too far for my noble friend on the Front Bench. With regard to the drafting, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the amendment was looked at by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who thought it was brilliant. Whether that makes it so is another matter.
I must deal with the points raised by the right reverend Prelate. If he believes that the diocese is prepared to send money back to the village, as he said, then I cannot see why he opposes the amendment. It would make it much easier. It would also make it easier that it does not have to take all or nothing. If he wants to exclude the towns, I do not mind; let him table an amendment at Third Reading and exclude towns.
I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate has read Faith in the Countryside. Page 268, under "Recommendations", states,
"Projected Charity legislation should amend Section 112 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to permit the Department of Education and Science on application by a diocese to allow a school to be sold for a sum lower than the market price to a charity whose activity serves the area originally covered by the school, or to allow part of the proceeds of sale to be used for other charitable purposes for the benefit of the locality".
I do not understand what the right reverend Prelate is saying.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I have read the report. If he looks back to the text, of which the recommendation at the end is a summary, he may agree that the words I quoted are in the text of the report and the brief summary does not include all the matters in the text.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I have no intention of delaying the House by going into the whole of the report. However, if the right reverend Prelate wishes, I shall be more than happy to do so. I suggest that the recommendation and summary was rather longer than the point he brought out in the text.
My second point, in response to the right reverend Prelate and your Lordships, is that the Churches are not of one mind. The right reverend Prelate may say that, but not all the bishops agree, let alone the clergy. I do not believe that he speaks on behalf of the Bench of Bishops; if so, where are they? Perhaps we shall see later.
The right reverend Prelate may not like me saying this but I fear that his attitude is selfish in the extreme. It ignores the needs of local people on the ground. That is why the pews are empty. It may be that the right reverend Prelate does not mind. I happen to mind. I am a former church warden and believe that this is one of the reasons it is happening. It is failure to understand the situation at the grass roots. That may be an unkind comment to make to the right reverend Prelate, but it must be said occasionally. The pews are empty.
I am minded to divide the House because there is no way forward unless my noble friend on the Front Bench is prepared to consider bringing the matter back at Third Reading. I still believe that there is a
432
difference of opinion. Many of the remarks my noble friend made in regard to the way the provision may be used are covered in (2B) (b) and (c) of the amendment. They also cover the point made by the right reverend Prelate.
Perhaps my noble friend will indicate whether he is prepared for me to bring the amendment back at Third Reading.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend asks whether I am prepared for my noble friend to bring the amendment back at Third Reading. My noble friend can bring it back if he wishes. I am happy to talk to him between now and then. However, I cannot give him any guarantee that I shall change my mind—not because I am obstinate but because I believe my noble friend is wrong.
The amendment says,
"the Secretary of State is satisfied that—
(a) the local community would be disadvantaged as a result of the sale of the school at the best price obtainable in the open market".
When a building is put up for sale, and involves an educational charity, it is not for the Secretary of State to determine that that charity should receive less than the market price. I can understand that my noble friend is concerned about this matter. If there is a way in which I can satisfy him and his requirements I shall do so. I shall be happy to talk to him about it. However, I am bound to tell him that he is wrong. His sentiments are entirely worthy; he wants to see the village helped. One has to deal with the matter of trust law. If the trust is for education, one cannot very well put the funds towards something that deals with day care for the elderly, although it might also deal with education. I am prepared to talk to my noble friend if that is what he wishes.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, that is a better answer. I believe that our interests are the same. If my noble friend talks to me between now and Third Reading I believe that he will see that my amendment always brings the subject back to education but he says that the amendment does not. We are on the same side. We must get the position right. Bearing in mind that it is very late and that I do not wish to divide the House because it would not be a good show, I shall bring the matter back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Amendment of Trustee Investments Act 1961]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 44:
Leave out Clause 37 and insert the following new clause:
"Relaxation of restrictions on wider-range investments
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury—

(a) direct that, in the case of a trust fund consisting of property held by or in trust for a charity, any division of the fund in pursuance of section 2(1) of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (trust funds to be divided so that wider-range and narrower-range investments are equal in value) shall be made so that the value of the wider-range part at the time of the division bears to the then value of the narrower-range part such proportion as is specified in the order;

(b) provide that, in its application in relation to such a trust fund, that Act shall have effect subject to such

433
modifications so specified as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of, or in connection with, any such direction.

(2) Where, before the coming into force of an order under this section, a trust fund consisting of property held by or in trust for a charity has already been divided in pursuance of section 2(1) of that Act, the fund may, notwithstanding anything in that provision, be again divided (once only) in pursuance of that provision during the continuance in force of the order.
(3) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Expressions used in this section which are also used in the Trustee Investments Act 1961 have the same meaning as in that Act.
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland, "charity" means a recognised body within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 152, 153, 156, 157 and 158. Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 introduce my own versions of Clauses 37 and 38. Amendments were moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I hope that these versions will meet the concerns expressed in Committee.
Amendment No. 45 replaces Clause 38. It is no more than a refinement of the existing Clause 38 and achieves substantially the same effect. The regulations may prescribe limits on the proportion of a charity's property which may be invested in particular investments; and the regulations may require that trustees obtain advice before investing in particular investments, as they may now be required to do under Section 6 of the 1961 Act. The power in the new Clause 38 is a special power for the purposes of Section 3 of the 1961 Act. As such it attracts the modifications to Section 2 of the 1961 Act set out in the second schedule to that Act.
The second schedule to the 1961 Act modified Section 2 of the Act so as to allow charities or other trusts having special powers of investment to divide their funds into three parts: a narrow range, a wider range and a special range. Funds from both the narrow and the wider range parts can be converted into special range property and then invested in accordance with the special powers of investment. Once regulations have been made by the Secretary of State, charity funds can be converted into special range property and invested in accordance with those regulations.
Orders and regulations made under Clauses 37 and 38 respectively will be made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The provisions of both clauses extend to Scottish "recognised bodies" within the meaning of Section 1(7) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. It seems to me only right that charities in Scotland should be able to take advantage of the new arrangements too.
The amendments made to Clauses 77 and 79 are consequential, the ones to Clause 79 being occasioned by the change in the extent of the new provisions. I hope that the new clauses will meet with your Lordships' approval. I hope that they will also meet
434
the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, which he expressed in Committee and for which he produced an amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, it would be ungracious were I not to say that I welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted the decision of the Committee which was taken against the advice of the Government. I believe that we had the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, with us on that occasion. I believe that by a significant majority the Committee came to the conclusion that the restrictions that had been imposed on trustees for many years as regards the issues covered in these amendments had been extremely damaging. They had cost the charities several hundred millions of pounds. The fact that the Government have now accepted the decision of the Committee is a matter that we should welcome.
The noble Earl had the rather unhappy task at Committee stage of appearing as advocate for the Treasury because it is their business and not that of the Home Office which we are discussing. Therefore, in addition to thanking the noble Earl, as I do, I should also like to thank the Economic Secretary. Without his support we would not be having these amendments before us today. The entire charity world will be delighted that the decision of the Committee has been accepted by the Government. I am most grateful to all concerned for having made this important amendment to the law.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to confirm that I did indeed agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on that occasion. I agree with him now and join with him in thanking my noble friend.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, we too on these Benches join in thanking the noble Earl and welcome the new Clauses 37 and 38.
On Question, amendment, agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 38 [Regulations for investment of property of charity]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 45:
Leave out Clause 38 and insert the following new clause:
"Extension of powers of investment
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made with the consent of the Treasury make, with respect to property held by or in trust for a charity, provision authorising a trustee to invest such property in any manner specified in the regulations, being a manner of investment not for the time being included in any Part of Schedule 1 to the Trustee Investments Act 1961.
(2) Regulations under this section may make such provision—

(a) regulating the investment of property in any manner authorised by virtue of subsection (1), and

(b) with respect to the variation and retention of investments so made,

as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) Such regulations may, in particular, make provision—

(a) imposing restrictions with respect to the proportion of the property held by or in trust for a charity which may be invested in any manner authorised by virtue of subsection (1), being either restrictions applying to

435
investment in any such manner generally or restrictions applying to investment in any particular such manner;

(b) imposing the like requirements with respect to the obtaining and consideration of advice as are imposed by any of the provisions of section 6 of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 (duty of trustees in choosing investments).

(4) Any power of investment conferred by any regulations under this section—

(a) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation from, any power conferred otherwise than by such regulations; and

(b) shall not be limited by the trusts of a charity (in so far as they are not contained in any Act or instrument made under an enactment) unless it is excluded by those trusts in express terms;

but any such power shall only be exercisable by a trustee in so far as a contrary intention is not expressed in any Act or in any instrument made under an enactment and relating to the powers of the trustee.
(5) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) In this section "property"—

(a) in England and Wales, means real or personal property of any description, including money and things in action, but does not include an interest in expectancy; and

(b) in Scotland, means property of any description (whether heritable or moveable, corporeal or incorporeal) which is presently enjoyable, but does not include a future interest, whether vested or contingent;

and any reference to property held by or in trust for a charity is a reference to property so held, whether it is for the time being in a state of investment or not.
(7) In the application of this section to Scotland, "charity" means a recognised body within the meaning of section 1(7) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Powers to delegate trustees' powers]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 46:
Leave out Clause 39.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I am seeking to remove Clause 39. I do not want to appear cavalier but there are good reasons why the clause should not appear in the Bill. It is a general rule of equity that trustees must act in person and that decisions concerning the charity must be taken by the trustees acting together. They can always invite some of their number, or an employee or agent, to look into particular matters connected with the charity and to make recommendations to them, but the decision as to whether or not to act on the recommendations is for the trustees to take together.
In the context of investments, responsibility for the management of a charity's funds rests with its charity trustees alone. Under the existing law the trustees may, perfectly properly, enter into suitable arrangements for the provision of investment management services by stockbrokers or other agents who specialise in this field and who can pay any reasonable charges for these services out of a charity's income, but the final responsibility remains with the trustees and cannot be delegated.
By suitable arrangements I mean that the trustees decide, in consultation with their investment agents at the outset and at regular intervals thereafter, what the
436
charity's investment objectives are. They agree a general strategy for achieving them. It is then for the agents to decide upon particular investments, and appropriate times, for purchase and sale (acting in accordance with the trustees' investment policy and within the discretion which the trustees may have given them). They must report at regular intervals on the current state, past performance and future prospects of the fund as a whole.
I think that these existing arrangements provide for a sensible and appropriate degree of delegation of trustees' responsibilities in the sphere of investments. To go further would be to undermine the fundamental responsibilities of trustees for the administration of their trust. For those reasons, I think that Clause 39 is both undesirable and unnecessary.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I should not like to put it as high as saying it is undesirable and unnecessary, but in view of the noble Earl's previous concessions it would be churlish and rather foolish of us to insist upon the inclusion of Clause 39.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, that represents my view as well. I speak for an all-party majority in this respect in Committee; we have won 90 per cent. of our case and it would be unreasonable for us to insist on the other 10 per cent. On the basis of that I do not oppose this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his generosity in granting 10 per cent. I am glad that I have been able to meet your Lordships over the concern that has been expressed. I hope that, on reflection, your Lordships will agree that Clause 39 is best taken out for the reasons I have given. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Small charities: power to transfer all property, modify objects etc.]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 37, line 10, leave out (", by a unanimous resolution,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 to 51. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee. The provisions in Clause 43 allowing the trustees of most charities with an annual income of £5,000 or less to transfer their property to another charity or charities or to modify their objects or trust provisions will play an important part in improving the effectiveness of local charities. As the Bill stands, a unanimous resolution is required if the trustees of a charity are to be able to act as I have just described.
There was much debate in Committee about the effect of this requirement where a single trustee can in practice exercise a veto over the plans of his colleagues. I accept the strength of this argument and agree that such a scenario would be unacceptable. These amendments therefore change the requirement to one of a two-thirds majority of those trustees who vote on the resolution in question.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 achieve exactly the same result in respect of resolutions made under Clause 44, which provides for the expenditure of

437
permanent endowment by charities with an annual income of £1,000 or less. Amendment No. 49 is purely to improve the drafting of Clause 43. The phrase "any such charity" is used in subsection (3) and it is not entirely clear to what description of charity the word "such" refers. It refers in fact to any charity to which Clause 43 applies by virtue of subsection (1). My amendment will make this plain. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as the noble Viscount rightly said, we spent a fair amount of time on this issue in the Public Bill Committee. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted what I think was the overwhelming majority view that it would be quite wrong to allow a situation to arise whereby a single recalcitrant trustee could in fact prevent action of the kind that is dealt with in the clause. We have accepted for many years majority verdicts in criminal trials, so it would seem to me bizarre if a single trustee could negative the views of his colleagues. On that basis I very much welcome the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for bringing forward the amendments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am grateful for what the Government have done.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, never let it be said that the Government—gauleiters or not—are unable or unwilling to take note of good arguments presented to them and to change their mind. Early in the progress of the Bill, particularly in Committee, we talked about this issue long and hard and the arguments about the perils of demanding a unanimous decision were powerfully put. I am happy that they have been found acceptable. It is true, is it not, that one dissenting voice can wreak havoc disproportionate to its influence?
I once had the job of preparing a government report on libraries. Librarians are even more contentious and difficult people than most. Never until I was obliged to try to get a unanimous decision out of them had I felt the full force of the tyranny of the threat by one stubborn backslider to present a minority report. Charities, and small charities in particular, will welcome these amendments. We thank the Minister for the consideration that he has given to them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
Page 37, line 30, at end insert:
("(2A) Any resolution passed under subsection (2) must be passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of such charity trustees as vote on the resolution.").
Page 37, line 31, leave out ("any such charity") and insert ("a charity to which this section applies").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49A not moved.]
Clause 44 [Small charities: power to spend capital]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 39, line 27, leave out (", by a unanimous resolution,").
Page 39, line 30, at end insert:
438
("(2A) Any resolution passed under subsection (2) must be passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of such charity trustees as vote on the resolution.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 47 [Limitation of liability of trustees]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 52:
Leave out Clause 47.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment was considered in Committee. It deals with limiting the liability of trustees of unincorporated charities. I said then that I fully appreciated the concerns in the charity world that had led to its introduction. However, I also said that it raised complex and controversial issues. For a number of reasons, I think that it should not continue in the Bill.
The intention of Clause 47 was to limit the personal liability of the trustees of unincorporated charities in a similar way to that which exists for trustees of charitable companies. However, I am not sure that it adds much, if anything, to the existing law. Provided that they act properly, the trustees of unincorporated charities are entitled to meet any debts and liabilities of their charity from any assets of the charity which do not form the permanent endowment. The question of the trustees being personally liable only arises, therefore, where the charity does not have enough income to meet its liabilities and where they can only be met by using funds which are part of the permanent endowment of the charity.
Under the present law, trustees may use a charity's permanent endowment in that way by order of the commissioners or of the court. Therefore, the trustees are protected now. The question of trustees becoming personally liable only arises where, even taking into account the permanent endowment, there are insufficient assets to meet the liability in question; in other words, where there is still a balance owing to creditors even after all the assets have been exhausted. There are, however, other ways in which the existing law protects trustees over this point.
Trustees can, for example, specifically limit their personal liability under any contract into which they enter so that their liability does not exceed the extent of the assets of the charity. Provided that the obligations under the contract have been properly met, the liability of the trustees will be confined to the assets of the charity.
The law allows charity trustees to take out insurance, at the charity's expense, against liability for acts which are properly undertaken in the administration of a charity or which may be undertaken in breach of trust by honest mistake. That kind of insurance would allow the liabilities of a charity to be met without the trustees becoming personally liable for them.
I do not think that Clause 47 will add to these existing protections. Indeed, it may make things more difficult for trustees. For example, the clause limits the liability only of those trustees who have met all of the statutory requirements which have been placed on them. That would include the new provisions for

439
accounting and reporting to the Charity Commissioners which are in the Bill. If a trustee was in breach of any of those requirements, whether that was due to oversight or even honest mistake, his liability would no longer be limited. That would certainly not be in the trustee's interest.
The new clause is also undesirable because it would adversely affect the position of third parties who enter into contracts with charities. Insolvency and bankruptcy law provides protection to third parties who deal with companies which cannot meet their proper liabilities. It enables competing claims against the company's assets to be marshalled and prioritised. Creditors of an unincorporated charity have no such protection. To create it would involve considerable consultation both within government and outside it. Third parties would not willingly see that final avenue of redress closed. It would be very complex and would be by no means uncontroversial.
I realise the understandable anxiety which lies behind Clause 47. But it raises very complex issues and does not fully address all of the implications of what it sets out to achieve. It may actually prejudice the position of trustees and would certainly prejudice that of third parties dealing with charities. All of these issues need to be tackled in a more considered way, and the Government intend, after the Bill completes its course, fully to examine the nature of the existing problem and to try to explore the options and implications of addressing it. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: My Lords, I hope that the House will bear with me if I set out the background to the clause, the deletion of which has just been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Clause 47 has its origin in an amendment to the Bill tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. That amendment was moved in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. In the Public Bill Committee it was recognised that an important question of principle had been raised. That issue of principle is by no means confined to charities connected with the Church of England but it applies to charity trustees generally.
After full discussion, the Committee voted to accept the clause. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his courtesy in writing to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester to explain in detail why he proposed to move the present amendment to delete the clause from the Bill. I have studied his letter with care, and I listened with equal care to his speech; nevertheless, I still feel obliged to speak against the amendment.
The clause does not affect the liability of trustees for breach of trust or in cases where they have acted improperly or imprudently in some way. The problem it addresses is that of the unlimited personal liability of charity trustees who contract or deal with third parties, even where the trustees have acted properly and reasonably in all respects, and have fulfilled all their statutory obligations. I shall give an example. The trustees of a charity, after taking proper professional advice, enter into a building contract of some kind, and a problem arises over the site or other
440
difficulties occur which result in the cost being much greater than was expected. The trustees may then be personally liable to the contractor for the whole sum involved, even if it means that they have to realise their personal assets or become bankrupt as a result.
Another hypothetical example is that of the trustees of an inner city project which employs staff and depends upon a government grant. Application for a grant is made in, let us say, February; in March indications are given in good faith that the grant will be available; but in June it happens that the grant is not, after all, forthcoming. I gather that there have been such cases. The trustees are then liable in full for salaries, overdrafts and redundancy payment; that is, as with the previous example, if the charity has no means to meet them.
Nowadays, charitable trustees are expected to undertake programmes, employ people, enter into commitments from one year to the next, provide homes for the homeless, and so forth. They enter into major commitments to further their charity's objects. The unlimited personal liability from which they suffer means that people with the necessary skills, experience and other personal qualities are increasingly reluctant to accept office as trustees. The position is often much more difficult for people of modest means who are charity trustees by virtue of some other office that they hold.
Where people have accepted office as charity trustees they may well be deterred from entering into ventures which may put them at serious risk, even where such ventures would be of great value in promoting the charity's objects and would benefit the community which the charity exists to serve. The trustees of unincorporated charities should surely have the same protection as that enjoyed by the trustees of charitable companies.
It has been contended that where trustees incur such obligations they may well be able to claim an indemnity from the charity's assets. However, the real issue arises where those assets are insufficient. It has been suggested that the trustees might insure against that risk. However, even if that were possible at the charity's expense—I gather that there are technical problems here in some cases—it would involve an extra drain on the charity's resources. What is more important, I understand that it may well be difficult, at any rate in the case of smaller charities, for trustees to obtain suitable insurance cover.
Another possibility mentioned was that the trustees might exclude their personal liability by a contract with the third party. Whether that is a real option in practice must depend upon the strength of the trustees' negotiating position. Surely the central question is, as the Public Bill Committee recognised, who is to bear the loss in such a case. Is it to be the charity trustee who, in the nature of things, is likely to be acting for the good of the community, or is it to be the third party? The third party will normally be acting, perfectly reasonably, on a commercial basis in order to make a profit. The third party, under the Bill, will be able to discover the charity's financial position

441
beforehand so that he enters into dealings with it with his eyes open. The third party will often be in a much better position to insure against the risk.
Clause 47 is intended to answer that question in favour of the trustee. It may well be that the precise wording could be improved, that supplementary provisions could be added and that the whole matter deserves much more thorough reconsideration. But I hope it will be possible for the noble Earl and his colleagues to bring forward amendments to deal with these points, if necessary in another place, during the passage of the Bill. Failing that, perhaps he would be willing to give a firm commitment on the Government's behalf to the principle behind the clause and to engage in consultation during the passage of the Bill on how to overcome any detailed problems.
Today charities are being urged as never before to play an active role in furthering the good of the community in many ways. The Bill helps towards that end. To do that, charities need suitably qualified men and women who are willing to act as trustees and to make positive decisions to further the charities' aims.
In my opinion, Clause 47 would overcome or provide a way of overcoming a considerable obstacle to achieving these objectives. Therefore, subject to any undertaking given by the Government of the kind that I suggested, I must, with regret, remain opposed to the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like briefly at this hour of the night to congratulate my noble friend on shortening the Bill to this extent. I understood him to say that any trustee who behaves honourably and properly and without gross negligence will have sufficient protection without Clause 47. I should like him to repeat what I thought he said. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate did not entirely catch it.
I only add that I cannot believe that anyone contemplating taking on the duties of trustee of a small charity would be likely to be encouraged into taking on those duties simply because of Clause 47. I doubt whether he would even read it.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, despite the excellent speech of the right reverend Prelate, I have to say that I support my noble friend in suggesting that this clause should be removed from the Bill. That is notwithstanding the interesting fact that it was put in during the Committee stage. It is interesting because I always thought that it was the custom that once something was decided in Committee it was not right to overturn it. However, I understand that procedures are slightly different when the Bill is taken in Committee off the Floor of the House.
I believe I am right in saying, but I am open to correction, that the accountability of trustees is covered by the Trustee Act 1925. Therefore I see no reason why any different accountability should be written into this Bill when, after all, if someone is a trustee they are a trustee. Whether it is of a charity or anything else, it is the same. A trustee must always
442
behave in a prudent fashion. He must always ask himself what a prudent man or woman would do under certain circumstances.
If something is to be done outside the trustees' knowledge in a specialist sphere, they go to professional advisers who are paid substantial sums of money for their advice, by which they stand. Presumably the trustees are insured against taking that advice but the advisers give their advice to the trustees. If the trustees act upon it in good faith, there is no way in which they can be endangered by it. Therefore I do not see that if the trustees behave in a prudent fashion, taking sound advice on the matters put before them, there is any need for this clause, having regard to the Trustee Act which covers all matters of trusteeship.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is a well accepted principle of our law that if persons carrying on an activity wish to limit their personal liability they should incorporate a company with limited liability to engage in that activity, which they can readily do at minimum expense. In the case of a charity, it will be a company limited by guarantee. I do not see any reason why charity trustees should be an exception to that principle.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that brief and penetrating intervention. He is entirely right. I say that with the greatest respect. Trustees are in the end liable. If the trust is not incorporated to limit liability, in the end the trustees are liable. I remember the amendment that was moved in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester and the concern that was expressed at that time. A number of people have expressed concern to me at either the inclusion or the deletion of Clause 47 since then.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle is quite justified in expressing those fears again today. He referred to a building contract that trustees had entered into which might prove to be more involved than they had expected and which might bankrupt them. However, it is the duty of trustees to act prudently. The right reverend Prelate correctly said charities are being urged to play a wider role in the community nowadays than ever before, but they still have to act prudently. If they incur liabilities they cannot meet, it is slightly unfair to suggest that the poor unfortunate third party who has undertaken the building work, the wiring or whatever has no recourse as regards recouping the expenditure he has incurred because the right reverend Prelate would like the liability of trustees to be limited.
Consideration has been given to the rights of redress of third parties. My noble friend Lord Peyton asked me to reaffirm that a trustee who operates prudently has nothing to fear. I did not use those words and those are not the words my noble friend used. But I could not even use them in a general way because in the end, if all the liabilities are not met by the assets, if the charity concerned is unincorporated the trustees are liable.

443
However, these are complex matters and I have considered them carefully between Committee and this stage of the Bill. They raise issues which contain implications that cannot be clarified between Report and Third Reading or the Bill going to another place. The Government intend, after the Bill has completed its course, to examine fully the nature of the existing problem and to explore the options and the implications of addressing it to see whether we can surmount the problem to which the right reverend Prelate has referred in such a way as is not deleterious or offensive to other people who have an interest in this matter. It is a complicated matter but I can assure the right reverend Prelate that it will be considered.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope I may make one point. Clause 47, as currently drafted, has two parts as it were. Clause 47(1) states that the total liability of the trustee,
"shall be limited to the value of all assets of that charity".
That is one point and I have heard what the noble Earl has to say on that. However, subsection (2) states that any charity trustee,
"shall be entitled to be indemnified in respect of any claim … arising out of any obligation incurred as trustee, out of any assets of the charity".
Subsection (3) states:
"Subsections (1) and (2) hereof shall only apply where—
(a) the conduct of the trustee was … reasonable; and"
he had at all times,
"complied with all statutory requirements of a registered charity".
The Minister may well say—as he has done—that he does not think liability should be limited to the value of all assets of a charity in the case of a legitimate claim of a third party against the charity. I hear that argument and there is some force in it, but what of subsection (2) and the indemnity? For the life of me I do not see what is wrong with that. If a trustee has been reasonable and has behaved properly, honourably and prudently—one may use whatever desirable adverb one wishes—why should he not be indemnified out of the assets of the charity? Even if the noble Earl will not look at subsection (1), will he not look at subsection (2)?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, subsection (2) as it is represents the existing law. This is provided in the Trustee Acts of 1925, and the only exception is on endowment. That can be dealt with by the courts and the commissioners; so that particular part is already covered by the existing law.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Contributions towards maintenance etc. of almshouses.]:
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 44, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) The trustees of an almshouse charity shall not, however, be authorised without the approval of the Charity Commissioners or the court to charge to any duly appointed resident of an almshouse such sum by way of contribution as, taken with the contributions payable by other residents, exceeds the amount required in order to meet the costs of maintaining the almshouses of the charity concerned and essential services therein.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this
444
amendment and Clause 51 relate directly to weekly maintenance contributions made by residents of almshouse charities.
I entirely accept the clause at it stands in so far as it relates to the amount of contribution being required from trustees or administrators of an almshouse charity to meet the costs of overheads, running maintenance, repairs, and so on. I am not sure that this clause goes quite far enough in that it gives a free hand to the trustees or the administrators to make whatever charge they so wish in their wisdom, for whatever purpose, to the inhabitants. At present, one can increase weekly maintenance contributions only by reference to and with the approval of the Charity Commissioners.
Again, I sing my old song: I still believe that the Charity Commission has an enormous part to play in the assistance and guidance, or as watchdog - call it what you will - of the administration of almshouse charities. But we have reached the hour of the night when it is becoming very plain to me that my noble friend does not really want to accept the fact that the Charity Commission is going to overrule or try to direct the actions of trustees. That may be so, and I am probably a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I think there should be some safeguard to protect inhabitants of almshouses from trustees who may on the face of it be perfectly erudite, honest and above-board, but who could be viewed as being somewhat opportunist in putting on unnecessarily high contributions in order ostensibly to improve their property beyond what is actually necessary.
I should like to think that the Charity Commission is involved, and an increase in the weekly maintenance contributions over and above that which is necessary for the basic upkeep should not be allowed without its approval. I beg to move.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, having been unconvinced by the previous arguments made on behalf of the almshouses, I am now very happy to find myself much more sympathetic to the proposals in this amendment.
The intention of the amendment seems to be to defend the weak and the vulnerable from any possible exploitation. That is a principle to which we should all agree if possible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is very keen on almshouses, and we return to them again in this amendment. When the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, rose and said that last time he was not convinced by my noble friend's argument I thought he was going to say "Nor am I this time". I was disappointed that he did not do so.
Almost all almshouse charities are governed by schemes which are made by the Charity Commissioners. Where an almshouse charity has power to require residents to pay maintenance contributions, that power is contained in the scheme; otherwise the trustees would not be able to impose the charges in the first place. Almshouse schemes contain a standard form of wording—I shall not weary your Lordships by quoting it at length—which empowers the trustees to require residents:

445
"to contribute a weekly sum towards the cost of maintaining the almshouses and the central services therein".
It is quite clear from that that the contribution of each resident must be put towards the maintenance cost. That means that the trustees have no power at present—let alone in the future—to require contributions in excess of the amount needed for maintenance costs. My noble friend's amendment is therefore not necessary because it seeks to prevent the trustees doing something which they are not allowed to do anyway.
Almshouse schemes usually go a step further. They specify that whatever the amount charged to a particular resident may be, it is to be put towards the maintenance and the amount shall not be such as to cause hardship to the resident. Almshouse charities are basically charities for the relief of poverty. This provision is necessary to prevent any possibility that a resident's poverty may be increased rather than be relieved through residence in an alsmshouse.
On a wider point, there is no earthly reason why the commissioners should continue to be involved in approving the level of almshouse maintenance contributions, unless one believes that almshouse trustees cannot be trusted to set the level of contributions themselves. I do not believe that. Almshouse charities at present are unique among charities in being subject to the commissioners' control over charges or fees which are payable by the beneficiaries. The need for the commissioners' approval was introduced in 1951 and is now quite out of keeping with the principle that trustees should be given the freedom to manage their charities without
446
excessive bureaucratic interference. The commissioners will always be pleased to advise the trustees of any charity on any matter which affects that charity. I do not think that my noble friend's amendment is necessary.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply but I am not 100 per cent. happy with it. If what he says is right and it is not necessary to prohibit any increase in weekly maintenance contributions, because in a scheme the deed lays down that it is purely for maintenance and so on, I begin to wonder whether there is any need at all for Clause 51.
It is now too late at night to go into this matter in detail, or indeed to test any opinion. I shall read what my noble friend has said. I note the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment, reserving the right to come back perhaps at Third Reading when there has been an opportunity to digest what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  BOTTLED WATER: QUALITY
  BOTTLED WATER: QUALITY
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS: COMPULSORY PUBLICITY
  PLANNING APPLICATIONS: COMPULSORY PUBLICITY
  DERELICT LAND GRANT PROGRAMME: RESOURCES
  DERELICT LAND GRANT PROGRAMME: RESOURCES
  HORSE GUARDS PARADE
  HORSE GUARDS PARADE
  AIRCRAFT NOISE MONITORING SYSTEMS: INSTALLATION
  AIRCRAFT NOISE MONITORING SYSTEMS: INSTALLATION
  EC MEETINGS
  EC MEETINGS
  ORTON AND VERA CHIRWA
  ORTON AND VERA CHIRWA
  ARMS SALES EMBARGOES
  ARMS SALES EMBARGOES
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
  NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
  FIJI: UK MILITARY TRAINING
  FIJI: UK MILITARY TRAINING
  IRAQ: SUSPECT NUCLEAR FACILITIES
  IRAQ: SUSPECT NUCLEAR FACILITIES
  SCHOOLS: CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
  SCHOOLS: CAPITAL EXPENDITURE