Sitting of 12 February 1992

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

    Manufacturing Output
    Mrs. Irene Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.
    The Secretary of State for Trade, Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): The reduction of inflation is the precondition of renewed sustainable growth.
    Mrs. Adams: Given that the second Tory recession is set to cost 550,000 manufacturing jobs and 100,000 companies and is set to put the United Kingdom at the bottom of the European Community league table on under-investment and employment in 1992, will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that urgent action is needed to boost employment in Britain to take us out of this situation? Will he also introduce training schemes to put the United Kingdom back where it was before we had a Tory Government and to take it out of this recession?
    Mr. Lilley: The key to renewed growth is lower inflation, which in turn makes lower interest rates possible. The interest rates in this country are now down to their lowest differential with those on the continent that we have seen for many years. We certainly do not need higher taxes, a minimum wage and the restoration of trade union power, which would prolong the recession and abort a recovery.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thank my right hon. Friend for responding so promptly to my request that either his good self or my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs should visit Nottingham. I understand that the Minister is planning to visit Raleigh Industries within the next 10 days. That company is the most famous cycle manufacturer in the world, but it is subject to the most unfair dumping of bicycles from China. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to protect that most famous name in the industry.
    Mr. Lilley: I recognise the powerful representations that my hon. Friend has made for industries in his constituency, and particularly the bicycle industry. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet representatives of that industry when he visits Nottingham and will
    958
    discuss the problems with them. Anything that we can do within the context of European Community trade policy, we will do.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: On top of the 2,300 jobs tragically lost at British Aerospace today, the textile and motor trade federations are now predicting 40,000 more job losses this year, the Building Trades Federation predicts that 50,000 more jobs will be lost this year, the Engineering Employers Federation predicts that 70,000 more jobs will be lost, and the Confederation of British Industry has said that 200,000 jobs will be lost in total unless Ministers take action. Has not the Government's last remaining friend, the Governor of the Bank of England, now extinguished the Government's last remaining claims to a pre-election recovery, and is it not the case that, having lost his support, the Government have now nothing left to lose but the election?
    Mr. Lilley: I naturally regret the loss of jobs by British Aerospace and other companies, not least those in my constituency. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the press release from British Aerospace today began:
    "The aviation market continues to suffer from the world-wide recession".
    The hon. Gentleman, however, continues to deny the existence of that recession, which makes a mockery of those who have lost their jobs as a result of it. British Aerospace has to reach world standards of productivity and efficiency, as it made clear in its press release. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell the House of the additional job losses that would follow if Labour's reckless defence cuts were superimposed on the problems already faced by the industry.
    The Governor of the Bank of England said that there are firm indications of an upturn coming and that the basis of sustainable growth remains a credible commitment to the goal of price stability. The Labour party could never credibly offer that.
    Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the increase in manufacturing output between 1985 and 1990.
    Mr. Lilley: Manufacturing output rose by nearly one fifth between 1985 and 1990.
    Mr. Cran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom is fortunate to have a large proportion of world-beating, world-class companies? That is illustrated by Rolls-Royce, which has quadrupled its share of the jet engine market since 1987 and, even today, by the news of the British Aerospace section, which has a £13 billion per annum order book and in size is second only to that in the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would not be nearly so many such companies if they had to put up with the economic and industrial policies of the Labour party?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to mention the strengths of those companies, even when they face difficulties in world markets, and to emphasise the difficulties that they would face at home if a Labour Government were adding to those problems. There has been a tremendous growth in exports in the aerospace industry, as in other industries. We welcome that and will do all we can to sustain and build on it in the future.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State confirm that bankruptcies and liquidations, affecting manufacturing as well as other industries, are at record levels not only in the south-east but particularly in Wales and Scotland? Will he also confirm that the fact that those bankruptcies and liquidations are occurring now in high-tech industries is a particularly worrying aspect? Does he agree that there is plenty of venture capital about, but that the venture capitalists do not have the confidence to know where to invest it? How will he instil confidence in the market so that investment in manufacturing industry can really start again?
    Mr. Lilley: Confidence will not be instilled by harping solely on the negatives. Naturally we regret any rise in bankruptcies, but let us remember the strengths of British industry, which has increased exports in the past 10 years by more than France, Germany, the United States or Japan—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Gentleman does not like that answer because he wants to talk Britain down.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the motor manufacturing industry is one of the greatest providers of employment in this country? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that the company car is not a tax-avoidance weapon but an essential tool of British industry and that, if we are to have a strong home-based industry, we do not need taxes so high that Jaguar and Rolls-Royce lose money? If those companies cannot sell their products at home, and if the Government do not encourage them at home, people abroad will not be encouraged to buy them either.
    Mr. Lilley: I have always shared with my hon. Friend a belief in the importance of manufacturing industry, particularly the motor car industry. Therefore, like him, I rejoice in the fact that in the last three months of last year the motor car industry earned a surplus on the balance of payments, and exports of motor cars rose by 55 per cent. I shall convey his point to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who also recognises the great importance of a strong and recovering motor car industry.
    Dr. Moonie: I notice that the main question carefully ended with the date "1990". Why has manufacturing output fallen faster and further in Britain's economy than in those of any of our competitors in western Europe? Does the Minister not yet realise that the country needs action, not words?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should remember that manufacturing output fell under the last Labour Government and that it is up under this Government. Compared with 10 years ago, at the same point in the economic cycle, output is up by nearly a quarter, investment is up by a third, manufacturing productivity is up by more than a half and manufacturing exports are up by nearly three quarters. That is a record to be proud of and to build on in the future.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the attractiveness of the United Kingdom as a location for telecommunications headquarters of internationally mobile companies.
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The United Kingdom is extremely attractive as a location for inward investment in the telecommunications industry. Recently, US West and IBM have announced that they are to move their business headquarters to the United Kingdom. One of the important characteristics of those moves was the support that it represented for British liberalisation policies. Many more companies will follow as investors.
    Mr. Mans: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the Government will continue their policy of liberalisation in the telecommunications industry and continue to welcome foreign companies to compete on an equal basis in this country—provided that, in return, our companies can compete in those countries?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is exactly what the Government intend to do. We welcome all sorts of investors here on fair terms. Another feature that we welcome is that manufacturers are now investing here in the manufacture of equipment to supply the telecommunications industry because of the strength of the underlying service provision in this country. How much I welcome NEC, Motorola and the other companies, which make large numbers of mobile phones in this country in response to the strength of the cellular mobile phone market.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is it not strange that, while foreign companies invest in this country, British companies which are aware of the position here have invested £40 billion more overseas than the foreigners have invested here?
    Mr. Redwood: Investment both ways is welcome because free trade and free investment flows increase world prosperity. I am delighted that enough large companies in this country have the profits to invest both here and abroad to bring more dividends and income into this country. It is a great testimony to this country that far more of the large, successful companies in Europe are based in Britain than in France or Germany.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the stunning improvement in telecommunications in this country in the past 12 years has been led by British Telecom? Will he confirm that not only has British Telecom invested—this is what the Opposition keep talking about—£20,000 million in new technology, but it has contributed no less than £1,000 million in corporation tax to the Exchequer?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. Much of the major investment in this country's telecommunications infrastructure in recent years has been from BT, which has made a much bigger contribution to the Exchequer than it did in the 1970s, as it is more efficient, more productive, sells more services, makes more money and pays more tax. That is true not just of BT—a large number of other investors are coming on to the market. Some £5 billion is pledged from the cable companies alone, which now have

    961
    20,000 telephone service customers. That is just the beginning. Many thousands more will follow. We offer choice, competition and more investment—how different from Opposition policies which would smash profits and investment, and return to a monopoly.

    Steel Production
    Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the figures for steel production in the United Kingdom for the last two years for which figures are available.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): United Kingdom production of crude steel totalled 17·8 million tonnes in 1990 and 16·5 million tonnes in 1991.
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that in Scotland we have gained the impression that while the Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to have meetings about the industry—such as the one that he had yesterday with the shadow Secretary of State for Industry—the man with the real power in relation to the steel industry, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is not prepared to lift a finger to help secure a future for steel production in Scotland? Will the Minister answer one straight question? Is the Department of Trade and Industry prepared to do anything to help the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) to try to secure thin slab steel production in Scotland—or are we to be left entirely to the mercy of that virtual private monopoly, the British Steel Corporation?
    Mr. Leigh: We would be happy to consider the prospects for thin slab steel production, but unfortunately there has been absolutely no commercial interest in such production. Those are the economic facts of life. As for the Government's position, we are investing £120 million to help the people and economy of north Lanarkshire, including £40 million from this Department. The hon. Gentleman asks what we intend to do. One could well direct that question to the Labour party. Will the Labour party nationalise, subsidise and force British Steel to keep the plant open? The Labour party should put up or shut up.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that British Steel's productivity woud be fatally crippled by Labour's absurd proposal to ban coal imports? Is he aware that 50 per cent. of imported coal goes directly to British Steel and that that coal is not currently available in the United Kingdom? Should not the Labour party occasionally pause and think before announcing ridiculous objectives which would cost so many British jobs?
    Mr. Leigh: We are extremely worried about that proposal, which was no doubt drawn up on the back of an envelope. British Steel tells us that there is no viable United Kingdom source of metallurgical—grade coal—coking coal. It has to import 100 per cent. of that grade of coal and take advantage of world markets to buy from the cheapest source. The Labour party wants to stop British Steel importing that coal.
    British Steel has trebled productivity since 1979. Does the Labour party want to return to the days when British Steel cost the taxpayer £8 billion or £16 billion in today's
    962
    money. The Opposition must withdrawn their policy, and do so today, or everyone will know what their policies mean for British Steel.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister aware that the case for expanded production and investment at the Dalzell plate mill in Lanarkshire is now backed by the Glasgow university study, the Scottish Office, the Scottish Trade Union Congress, the Scottish National party and Motherwell district council, all of whom believe that it is an outstanding plant, given the requisite investment, with a ready market for its enlarged product? Would the Minister be prepared to back such investment and expanded production, provided that the local Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is prepared to stop rubbishing the plant and its work force?
    Mr. Leigh: There is every provision for market investment in this area. If the market wants to back such a scheme the market will back it.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that in the heady days of politician-directed industrial strategy in the 1970s Britain had a deficit on our steel trade of £1 billion per year and British Steel lost £16 billion during that decade, whereas now British Steel is the most efficient steel maker in Europe and we have a surplus on our steel trade of £1 billion per year? If Labour Members are so keen on Ravenscraig staying open, why does the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) not have the guts—or perhaps the influence in the shadow Cabinet—to give an unequivocal commitment that if the Labour party came to power it would keep Ravenscraig open?
    Mr. Leigh: I see that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) is seeking to intervene. The whole House is waiting to hear what the Opposition's policy is. Will they subsidise? Will they nationalise? We want to know now.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the proposals for the expansion and development of the Dalzell works have been pursued for many years more consistently and vigorously by the Labour party than by any other party? Is he also aware that British Steel cannot go ahead with its plans for building a new plate mill on Teesside because of the depth of the recession into which the Government have plunged the country? Is he further aware that he is out of date about the commercial interest in thin slab production at Ravenscraig, which has been communicated to the Secretary of State for Scotland but not, apparently, to the Department of Trade and Industry?
    Is the Minister aware that substantially lower steel production costs are being achieved by NUCOR with thin slab production in the United States? Will he confirm, in line with undertakings given at the time of privatisation, that he expects British Steel to consider offers for the sale of Ravenscraig on a commercial basis at opportunity cost—at a price which British Steel could expect to get for the plant on world markets?
    Mr. Leigh: That was a very interesting academic lecture, but it was absolutely meaningless because I have already said that if there was a market for thin slab production we would welcome that. Once again, despite the smoke-screen, the hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the question to which everyone in Scotland wants an

    963
    answer. Will Labour subsidise Ravenscraig? Will it nationalise it? Will it force British Steel to keep it open? The Opposition refused to answer that in the recent debate, and they have refused to answer it again today. Their only guiding light is ambition for office, and they refuse to tell the people of Scotland what their policy is. That is disgraceful.

    Hosiery and Knitwear
    Sir John Farr: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken in the last six months to protect hosiery and knitwear manufacturers from dumped third-world imports.
    Mr. Redwood: The United Kingdom Government will pursue vigorously with the EC authorities any dumping cases brought to our attention. In this industry, none has been brought in the past six months. Last year, under different provisions, a temporary ban was imposed on Chinese underwear imports to stop a temporary surge.
    Sir John Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that up to 500,000 jobs in Britain depend on having a sensible, controlled market, and that discipline and control of third world dumped imports can be brought about only if we have a sensible GATT regime? Will my hon. Friend please encourage my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to press to ensure that we have the protection of a new GATT structure as soon as possible?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has my full assurance. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade are dedicated to pursuing sensible GATT solutions to these problems. The Government fully recognise the importance of the industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, (Sir J. Farr) so ably represents, and we want proper GATT disciplines for fair trading in this as in other sectors. I hope that our partners in the world economy and the European Community will assist our efforts to achieve speedy resolution of the GATT discussions.
    Mr. Cryer: How is it that at the British yarn show held recently in Leicester the chairman of Benson Turner, a firm of spinners in my constituency and an efficient and well-organised company, complained that the Department of Trade and Industry shows inertia and indifference when the industry submits complaints about illegal subsidies and dumping? The chairman called on the Department to take action about those complaints because if it did not do so there would be little industry left to take action about.
    Mr. Redwood: I can promise that the Department will take vigorous action where there are good cases. I am advised that no cases came to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the past six months. The hon. Gentleman should represent his constituents by writing a letter with specific complaints. We shall then take action to follow it through with the EC authorities.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents work in the knitwear industry and are grateful for the steps already taken by the Government. Does he agree that they are at greater risk not from imports but from the minimum wage, which would devastate the knitwear industry?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. The proposals of the Labour party, and some of the proposals in the Maastricht social protocol, would be deeply damaging to the industry. We do not want to see those jobs destroyed. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might like to remember that in the polyester yarn sector, which is not covered by the question, there are anti-dumping suits going on, so we are pursuing the cases of which we are aware.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that it is not true that there have been no notifications of dumping in the past six months? Is he aware of the work that the Scottish Knitwear Council has been doing with departmental officials showing that in 1990 a total of 123,000 knitted garments in cashmere coming from China were dumped over the quota agreed? What action is the Department taking to seek compensation and redress so that the overshipments in 1991 and this year are stopped forthwith?
    Mr. Redwood: The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) was specific. It asked about six months in a limited industry, and I gave an accurate answer on that. There have been cases in cashmere relating to an earlier period and we are pursuing those actively with the EC authorities. We have to ask whether there was some failure in the mechanism of the quota arrangements, and whether they can be adjusted or whether there needs to be some compensation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is actively pursuing that.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress. In fairness to those whose questions come further down the Order Paper, I propose now to speed up a bit.

    Post Office
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Post Office's negative external financing limit for the year 1992–93.
    Mr. Leigh: A negative external financing limit of £66 million has been set for the Post Office for the year 1992–93.
    Mr. Hain: Since 1979, the Post Office has contributed more than £1 billion in negative external financing limit payments, at 1991 prices, cutting back on investment and milking the customer. Would it not be far better for the Government to end these punitive and ridiculous double tax payments—the Post Office already pays corporation tax—thus allowing it to concentrate on improving the quality of service to customers rather than pursuing abolition of the second delivery in towns and putting restrictions on rural services such as insisting that people have letter boxes at the bottom of their gardens or, in some cases, making people go to village centres for their letters? Should not the priority be investment to improve the quality of services?
    Mr. Leigh: Let us put the matter into perspective. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I am only trying to answer the question. We are talking about an organisation which has a turnover of £4 billion. It is not unreasonable that, from

    965
    that, it should give its only shareholder—the Government—a dividend of £65 million per year. If we did not require that dividend, which is spent on hospitals, schools and much else, we would be able to cut only about 1p off the 24p cost of a first-class stamp. This year, the Post Office has a £340 million capital investment programme. The first and second-class delivery services have shown a marked improvement over the past two or three years. The Post Office is a successful and profitable organisation, and I hope that the Opposition wish it to remain so.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rural sub-post office is at the heart of the rural community and that it plays an essential role in west Norfolk? Will he do what he can to ensure that as many Government services as possible are available at post offices? For example, why cannot every rural sub-post office have a vehicle relicensing facility?
    Mr. Leigh: We are anxious to protect the rural post office network and one of the main purposes of the citizens charter is, through the process of competition, to improve quality and choice within the constraints of an affordable uniform tariff. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend, who represents a rural constituency, that we have very much in mind the needs of rural post offices and we shall look with interest at any requests that they make to us for extending their liability to sell other services.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that it is feared in rural areas that a move towards privatisation would lead to services that require subsidies being axed, which would be a body blow to those rural areas and their opportunities for economic development? Can he give any assurance about the future of such services in rural areas?
    Mr. Leigh: I have already given such an assurance. I have said that the Government are committed to the maintenance of the uniform tariff structure, about which people in rural areas are concerned. That is the commitment that we have given and by which we stand.

    Mucking Flats
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to visit Mucking Flats in south-east Essex, to discuss industrial growth in the area.
    Mr. Lilley: I shall read this answer with particular care. I have no plans at present to visit Mucking Flats.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, thanks to the Government's progressive policies in privatising the electricity industry, that area of south-east Essex deserves a visit because methane produced by all the muck that comes out of London is being dumped at Mucking Flats, converted into electricity and sold to the national grid, thanks to the enterprise of Cory's, which is in my constituency? Is he further aware that, just up the road from Mucking Flats at Shell Haven, Shell and Mobil are planning to turn their spare gas into electricity? Does not that show that when we introduce private enterprise we turn muck into brass?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend offers me an enticing invitation which I shall consider taking up. This is an interesting plan and I am delighted that my Department has been able to offer a grant to help it. We want to see the
    966
    environmentally friendly development of electricity. I understand that this scheme will be able to light up a town of about 30,000 people, just as my hon. Friend can today, almost single-handedly, light up her constituency.

    Recession
    Mr. Orme: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from businesses in the north-west concerning the effects of the recession in industry.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend receives considerable correspondence about the state of northwestern business.
    Mr. Orme: Will the Minister confirm that since 1979 there has been a 37 per cent. reduction in manufacturing industry in the north-west—a larger proportion than in any other region in the United Kingdom—that last year 16,800 jobs in the manufacturing and engineering industries were lost and that, unfortunately, we foresee more jobs being lost as a result of the statement made by British Aerospace today? Faced with those facts, what action will the Government take? Why do they stand aside as British manufacturing industry is reduced, whereas our main competitors in other countries support their industries?
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend set out the Government's policies some time ago in a clear document that was fully backed by the CBI, which believes that we have the right policies to improve our competitiveness and to take advantage of lower inflation and of business conditions around the world as they improve. In the 1980s, north-western output expanded, as it did nationwide. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier that manufacturing output was up by more than one fifth, and productivity, investment, and exports by much more impressive figures. The CBI stated recently that matters will improve and the Bank of England says that the leading indicator measures point firmly to an upturn in output in 1992.
    Sir Peter Blaker: As to British Aerospace, will my hon. Friend give a firm assurance that the Government will continue vigorously to support exports of military aircraft—something which is strongly opposed by many Opposition Members? What is the Government's attitude to Labour's proposal for a defence diversification agency, bearing in mind that if it were so easy to create jobs through a Government agency, it is surprising that Labour has always left behind more unemployed than when it took office.
    Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend is right. The Government will offer all assistance under our policies and programmes to help British Aerospace to export its products. After all, it is orders that businesses need to provide jobs and to guarantee employment. The large defence cuts that Labour proposes would be ruinous to job prospects, and its ham-fisted intervention plans would not work. It would not be easy to effect the transition that Labour suggests by Government sleight of hand. What is required is careful business planning by the managers and directors of the companies concerned.
    Mr. Hoyle: Yes, but if the Minister will come into the real world, he will find that redundancies are still occurring. Many of the redundancies at British Aerospace involve white-collar workers, including professional engineers—many of whom are graduates. What future will they have in the recession that continues under the present Government?
    Mr. Redwood: The worldwide recession will lift. It is doing so in many parts of the world, and that provides export and job opportunities. Skilled people always have opportunities ahead of them, and I am sure that they will continue to do so under this Government, who have the right economic policies. Those opportunities would be wrecked by the Opposition's policies for commerce and industry.

    Deregulation Unit
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the work of his Department's deregulation unit.
    Mr. Redwood: The Government have a strong programme of deregulatory work. I will announce shortly the work programme for the coming year. Removing or reducing burdens on business is vital to successful enterprise policies.
    Mr. Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work so far. Does he agree that minimising the regulatory burden on business is a worthy objective for any Government? Would not it be a disaster for business throughout the country suddenly to be confronted by a long list of new regulations and constraints? I refer to social audits, contract compliance agencies, work force monitoring, compulsory disclosure of information, minimum wages, equality tribunals and many other Opposition ideas.
    Mr. Redwood: That is a forbidding and worrying list for all business people. One of this country's great strengths is that the burdens imposed by the Government on employing people are much lighter than in France and Germany. That is why we enjoy higher inward investment compared with those two countries. Labour Front-Bench spokesmen think that that is amusing. They do not understand the importance of keeping costs under control, and of making sure that the Government do not impede enterprise.
    Mr. Flynn: As an apostle of deregulation, will the Minister investigate why British Transport Advertising has banned British Medical Association advertising that seeks to discourage smoking by young people when, at the same time, the tobacco industry spends £300 million on advertising—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we need visual aids.
    Mr. Redwood: I do not see how I can answer the question as I could not see properly the document that the hon. Member was waving.
    Mr. Speaker: We proceed here by speech, not by visual aids.
    Mr. David Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that when he announces new proposals for deregulation he will
    968
    ensure that he and his officials have consulted the Minister for small businesses to see that every effort is made to take into account the needs of small businesses and that deregulation, wherever possible, is increased, so that small businesses can get special exemptions where possible from what can be very complicated regulations and procedures that the Government introduce?
    Mr. Redwood: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Much practice in the past year or two has reflected just that process, after a good deal of consultation with small businesses. They have been exempted from certain reporting requirements by my Department under the companies legislation, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a lot of measures in last year's Budget to improve the position of small businesses, because tax is revealed to be one of their most noticeable problems when they reply to our consultations.
    Ms. Mowlam: When the Minister reviews the business regulations will he consider extending that review to the regulation of financial institutions, in view of the problems with the collapse of Guinness III and the potential collapse of Guinness II, and in view of the serious difficulty with fraud regulation at present, particularly now that only three people will be going to gaol for a shorter time than the whole of the Guinness trial was taken, with one of them, Mr. Ernest Saunders, whose sentence was reduced because of ill health, on the national media this morning in blooming health and protesting his innocence?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not intend to comment on individual cases before the courts. The general principle of the Government's policy is clear: we will ensure that people who commit fraud and swindles are brought to book through the courts. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently made statements, and was on the radio this morning, about the review that he is conducting of how court procedures can be improved. The House can rest assured that the Government will take every action possible to bring villains to book. We will not tolerate them.

    Recession
    Mr. Clelland: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the long-term effects of the recession in industry.
    Mr. Lilley: British industry is well placed to grow as we recover from the recession.
    Mr. Clelland: Does the Secretary of State recall that in the last recession under this Government the collapse of manufacturing industry was said to be making it leaner and fitter to face the future? Ten years on, and having lost more than 150,000 manufacturing jobs in the northern region alone, manufacturing is faced with yet another recession, only this time, far from leanness and fitness, it is faced with malnutrition and is dangerously near the point of no return. With 6,000 manufacturing jobs being lost every week and 1,000 businesses a week going under, what action does he intend to take before more of our industrial capacity is lost altogether?
    Mr. Lilley: We are used to the Labour party believing that it can talk up its support by talking the country down.

    969
    The hon. Member believes that he should talk down his own region and constituency. I notice that the Newcastle Journal has the headline
    "North-East bucks the trend with firms taking on more workers", and I am sure that the hon. Member will be delighted that Vickers in his constituency, making the new tank, has excellent opportunities at home and export prospects abroad. They would be helped by, and I am sure that they would welcome, a positive, upbeat statement from the hon. Member about the revived and renewed prospects for the north-east, which has been transformed not least by inward investment which is threatened by the Front Bench of the Labour party.
    Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the shadow Chancellor recently visited the James Halstead group in my constituency—it employs more than 400 people and is successful in making good profits—he expressed satisfaction to the local media that most of the technology that he saw was British-made and that most of it had been made 20 miles from Bury? Would it not be a good idea if the Opposition actually trumpeted these successes in the British manufacturing industry instead of moaning and complaining and doing British industry down?
    Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. I noticed that this did not feature in their party political broadcast, wrongly entitled "Made in Britain" and alleging that virtually nothing was made in Britain, when we not only have the successes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) in his constituency but export far more television sets than we import and make the best hi-fi in the world, and when one in ten personal computers sold in the world are made in this country—in Scotland.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, since the beginning of 1990, manufacturing investment has fallen by 35 per cent? Will he tell the House why he has rejected the CBI's call for investment incentives and investment strategies?
    Mr. Lilley: The CBI urges people not to take a short-term view, as the hon. Gentleman does in considering only a 12-month period. If we take a 10-year view, we see that manufacturing investment is up by a third in comparison with a similar part of the same cycle. I believe that, as we come out of the recession, we shall find that British industry is much stronger than it was during the same period at the beginning of the 1980s, and that it will prosper mightily during the remainder of the 1990s.

    "199?" Hotline
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the "199?" hotline has received from small businesses in Essex.
    Mr. Leigh: Nationally, calls for January this year have been over 50 per cent. higher than the corresponding period last year, and nearly 120 per cent. higher than in December 1991. Calls to the single market hotline are not necessarily recorded on a geographical basis.
    Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that, next month, my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) and I shall be visiting the European Commission and Parliament—not only to tell Mr. Delors
    970
    that he cannot have all the money that he is asking from the British people, but to create business opportunities for our constituents? Does my hon. Friend agree that Basildon, the finest town in the country, is strategically placed to take full advantage of the single market? Of course, my hon. Friend's hotline is available to help my constituents with their inquiries.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend always speaks out powerfully for Basildon: he has done so for the past eight years, and I have no doubt that he will do so for the next eight.
    Basildon is indeed well placed to take advantage of the single market, but it is important for companies to be well prepared. It is therefore extremely encouraging that, only this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took the 250,000th call on the single market hotline—and he could give the answer to the caller's question.

    Telephone Repairs
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the nature and range of discussions he has had with OFTEL on the length of time customers have had to wait to have their telephones repaired; what changes in waiting time there have been in the last seven years; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: The Government and the Director General of Telecommunications frequently discuss telecommunications policy issues. Ninety-nine per cent. of faults are now repaired in two working days, compared with 87 per cent. in 1985. My hon. Friend may remember that, in 1980, a quarter of a million people had been waiting for more than two months for telephones to be connected. Seven days—a week—is a long time to wait for a telephone service nowadays.
    Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that our policy of privatisation and the liberalisation of the telecommunications industry has led to lower prices and a better quality of service for the consumer? In the light of that, and of the answer that he has just given, would he care to contrast our policy with that of the Labour party?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right: our policies have been most successful in achieving higher-quality service and lower-priced telephone calls. How welcome that is. Labour's policies, which are partly monopoly and partly over-regulatory, and aim to damage the industry's profits and investments, could only make matters worse. Quality would deteriorate and people would have less choice and therefore a less good service.
    Mr. Dalyell: Given the position of such firms as Motorola at Bathgate do the Government recognise that what such firms really want is infrastructure, and that local authorities should be helped to provide it?
    Mr. Redwood: All kinds of infrastructure are being provided, both through the expenditure of public moneys under programmes organised by, for instance, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, and through the provision of large amounts of private-sector capital in the case of such matters as telecommunications infrastructure. The big surge in investment has been possible only because of the

    971
    liberalisation policies pursued by the Government. It is being backed up by road programmes and by railway and other investment.

    Companies (Government Intervention)
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industrialists urging the Government directly to intervene in the strategic direction and management of companies.
    Mr. Lilley: The CBI report "Competing with the World's Best" rejected the notion that Government could or should
    "be in the business of picking winers, or of engaging in direct intervention in the strategic direction and management of companies".
    Mr. Riddick: Yet is that not exactly what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and his hon. Friends are advocating, through the establishment of a national investment bank and a host of other measures—despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman has never done a day's work in industry in his life? Clearly, the British people do not want a return to the failed interventionist, socialist policies of the 1960s and 1970s—and that is another reason why Labour will be defeated at the next general election.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is extraordinary that only last week the Leader of the Opposition confirmed that the Labour party is still wedded to bodies such as the national enterprise board, despite the fact that, of the 102 companies in which that body invested, about 35 went bust, 38 were sold at a loss and only the remainder managed even to return taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Graham: Will the Secretary of State have some regard for companies like Lawtex, a firm in my constituency that went into liquidation, resulting in the loss of 120 jobs? Six months later, those people are still waiting for their redundancy payments. Why are the Government sitting on their backsides and failing to see that they are paid now?
    Mr. Lilley: With regard to the example that the hon. Gentleman has given, if there is any question of the law of the land not being obeyed I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to look into it.

    Development and Assisted Area Status (Devon)
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reconsider the boundaries for development and assisted-area status in Devon.
    Mr. Leigh: The Government intend to conduct a full review of the assisted areas—for all of Great Britain—early in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Speller: After the general election, will my hon. Friend give priority to consideration of rather more remote areas, like Ilfracombe, Barnstaple or South Molton that have rural or coastal connections? Should not the Government be considering places where rail and air communications are poor and where the reduction in the defence programme is causing employment problems?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is a very effective constituency Member. I know that he lobbies hard on behalf of his constituents. Indeed, he has already brought two delegations to see me. I am aware of his constituency's problems, and I promise that as soon as this review is held we shall urgently consider them. He spoke generally of the problems of rural areas and less-favoured areas. It is interesting that since I have been the Minister responsible for regional policy, regional spending has increased from £506 million in 1990 to £534 million in 1991–92. That shows an elementary fact of political science: that when one becomes a Minister one does the opposite of what one previously promised.

    Environmental Technology Innovation Scheme
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will increase the level of expenditure on the environmental technology innovation scheme.
    Mr. Lilley: Although there has been a good response so far to the environmental technology innovation scheme, there are no plans to increase the current allocation of £12 million.
    Mr. Banks: Given the nature of the tasks facing industry, that seems a rather small amount of money. Is any of it used to find alternatives to CFCs in the manufacture of refrigerators, foam, and so on? I assume that the Minister is aware that 750,000 tonnes of CFCs are used in the world every year and that that has resulted in an ozone layer hole as large as Alaska. What are the Government doing to further alternative technologies?
    Mr. Lilley: We believe that this scheme will attract considerable sums of private money for the development of such technologies. We believe that small and medium-sized companies, which tend to be the most innovative, will be persuaded to develop new technologies and that that investment will result in considerable leverage. About 280 applications have already been received. I am not sure whether any of them cover the technology that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but, like him, I recognise the importance of solving the problem and hope that, by this scheme or otherwise, solutions will be found.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating staff at the university of Kent and the two commercial pharmaceutical companies with whom the university is combining in a venture called "Viridian", which is a programme of environmental biotechnology based entirely on bacteria that are naturally available? Under that programme, they have been able to demonstrate ways of breaking up many dangerous industrial wastes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that there is scope, through a range of Government and quasi-government bodies, to encourage action beyond what can be done with direct Government money?
    Mr. Lilley: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who are involved in this research. I recently had the privilege of opening the display on biotechnology in George street. This is a subject in which Britain has a lead over the rest of Europe and much of the

    973
    world. We want to strengthen that lead, as we believe that it is in the interests of British industry, British science and the world environment.

    Overseas Investment
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of overseas investment in the European Community is made in Britain.
    Mr. Leigh: According to the latest information published in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic outlook, December 1990, in 1988–89 the United Kingdom had a nearly 40 per cent. share of the total inward foreign direct investment in the EC.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not the significance of that reply that in a Community of Twelve, investment in this country is as much as that in the other Eleven put together? Is not that the most telling argument as to the comparative economic strength of this country?
    Mr. Leigh: Yes, of course it is. The fact that this country is the No. 1 location for inward investment in Europe shows that the international business community has confidence in our policies. What the House wants to know is whether the international business community has confidence in the policies of the Labour party. We keep asking questions about the Opposition's investment plans: how much they intend to give to the British Technology Group, regional development agencies and investment trusts. There was a Department of Trade and Industry Question Time last month and a debate last week, but the Opposition did not answer those questions. Seven Labour Members are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that one of them will stand up now and give the answers, because the whole House wants to know.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Does not the Minister understand that the simple reason for inward investment in Britain has nothing to do with the Government's activities? The Governments of countries such as Germany and France invest in their own industries. The difference is that, far from investing in our own industry, the Government of this country is slaughtering it. Then they have to send Ministers like that youngster around the world with a begging bowl to get other industries to come in to repair the damage that they have done.
    Mr. Leigh: Now at last we see the true face of the Labour party on inward investment. The Trades Union Congress has called this alien. I want an answer from one of the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench about their views on inward investment. We now have companies such as Fujitsu in the north-east of England, Nissan in the north-east of England and Toyota in Derbyshire bringing wealth into this country and improving our manufacturing competitiveness. What is the attitude of the Labour party towards inward investment? Do the Opposition favour it or reject it?

    Manufacturing Output
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received about manufacturing output.
    Mr. Lilley: I have received the recent excellent report by the CBI's manufacturing advisory group which showed that there has been a transformation in manufacturing performance during the 1980s.
    Mr. McMaster: With output in the construction industry falling to its lowest level for six years and the industry predicting a further 50,000 job losses this year, when will the Secretary of State stop his policy paralysis and start listening to people in industry who know what they are talking about? Will he now start an emergency investment programme? When will the Secretary of State stop attacking good advice and start attacking the recession?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman surely realises that the key to success in that industry is lower interest rates and that the key to lower interest rates is lower inflation. All the policies that the hon. Gentleman and his party advocate would move us in exactly the opposite direction.
    Mr. Batiste: Is my right hon. Friend aware that constituencies such as mine in Leeds have been very considerable beneficiaries of investment in a wide range of different industries? For example, this year alone we shall see the commissioning of chemical and textile plants. We are beneficiaries to the extent of a 20 per cent. reduction in unemployment since the time of the last general election. What those industries fear more than anything else is interference by the Government and the European Commission, interference in the choice of products that they can make, interference in the work patterns that they can enjoy and interference in their wage rates. The more successful my right hon. Friend is in resisting that interference, the greater will be the level of investment in this country.
    Mr. Lilley: Everything that my hon. Friend says is echoed by the business men I meet. They know that the greatest damage would be done to this economy by raising taxes, by imposing a minimum wage and by restoring artificial trade union powers. They do not want it. They reject it. They are determined that we continue with the strategy which, as the Confederation of British Industry says, has restored the health of manufacturing industry and revived the strength of the British economy during the 1980s.

    Industrial Policy
    Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to discuss industrial policy.
    Mr. Lilley: I next plan to meet representatives of the northern region CBI later this month to discuss a range of business matters.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are progressing speedily but the Minister has answered Question 21. We are on Question 20.
    Mr. Lilley: I meet representatives of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce from time to time to discuss a range of policies.
    Mr. Redmond: Does the Secretary of State accept that people living in the real world question the Government's industrial policy? In fact, the Government have had no industrial policy since being elected in 1979. The people are sick and tired of seeing on the television, hearing on the radio and seeing in the press the fairy stories that the Secretary of State keeps preaching from the Dispatch Box. Does the Secretary of State accept that we should have an industrial policy that is beneficial to Britain so that we can meet the challenge of the 21st century?
    Mr. Lilley: I read earlier the CBI's rejection of any policy in which the Government tried to pick winners, determine strategic investments and interfere in the decisions of business. That is the sort of industrial policy that industry does not want. Industry wants low inflation, a consequent reduction in interest rates, competition, open markets, a successful GATT round and completion of the European single market at the end of this year. We will provide that.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that Question Time is an opportunity for Back Benchers and others to ask questions of Ministers and for Ministers to give substantive answers. Today we have not had answers from the Ministers. All we have had is party political polemics. Do you, Mr. Speaker, have any power to instruct Ministers to earn their money—they are paid substantial amounts—and answer the questions on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: I have no such power.
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who have been here throughout Question Time and have questions on the Order Paper were satisfied with the answers given by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We recognise that it is impossible for everyone to be called, including myself, although I had hoped that my question would be reached.
Mr. Speaker: When we have a full hour, I try to reach at least Question 20. We managed to achieve that today.
I think that every hon. Member who wished to sign the book for the ballot has now done so, and I should like to draw it.
Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you find time to make it clear to Ministers that, if Opposition Front Bench Members were to rise to the taunts that we have heard often today to answer questions, give the Labour party's policy and so on, you would be forced to rule such interventions out of order? They are not here to answer questions. The Government are here to defend their policy, however inadequate they are at doing so.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one at a time. The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) and I have been in the House about the same length of time. Over the numerous elections in which he and I have taken part, I have noticed a tendency for this sort of thing to happen.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not in order for
978
Opposition Front Bench Members to put their policies into the form of questions? If they had any faith in their policies, they would do so.
Mr. Speaker: I have already told the House that I am not responsible for the content of answers, as long as they are in order. I should now like to draw the ballot.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Happy birthday—all right.
Mr. Skinner: There have been occasions when there has been a waste of time during Question Time and you have allowed a little extra time. On this occasion, you were obviously not aware of what happened, but the baby-faced Minister—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the one with the Pampers on—could not count beyond 20 and we lost two valuable minutes. I think that you should add those on.
Mr. Speaker: The trouble was that he did count beyond 20.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having heard the Opposition constantly denigrating British industry, we were trying to get in to point out that we should help industry by encouraging the brightest and best, not by crying stinking fish as the Opposition do.
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise how the procedure might be reconsidered under which questions must be tabled two weeks in advance. We have seen the disadvantage of that today in that it is not possible directly to raise the 3,000 job losses at Gateway, the 2,000 redundancies at Rover and the 2,000 redundancies at British Aerospace. Events are moving so fast that 2,000 businesses have gone bust since these questions were tabled.
Mr. Speaker: This is a clear extension of Question Time. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that there are opportunities to put such questions to the Leader of the House during business questions on Thursday.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. John Browne

Mr. Ken Hargreaves

Mr. Henry Bellingham

Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
3.36 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure to every person within the United Kingdom the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and its protocols, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and certain other rights and freedoms; to ensure that there are effective remedies before the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom for breaches of these fundamental rights and freedoms; to give such fundamental rights and freedoms the same precedence and priority within the legal systems of the United Kingdom as are given to enforceable Community rights under section 2(1) and (4) of the European Communities Act 1972; to establish a United Kingdom Human Rights Commission with power to initiate legal proceedings for the protection of these fundamental rights and freedoms and to give advice and assistance concerning the protection of these rights; to enable the Human Rights Commission to challenge the validity of any provision of any Act of Parliament that in its opinion is in contravention of the guarantees of the fundamental rights and freedoms secured by this Act by instituting legal proceedings in the High Court, the Court of Session or the High Court of Northern Ireland as the case requires; to enable the Human Rights Commission to examine legislation or proposed legislation for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and to report any such inconsistency to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
The Bill would secure for every person within the United Kingdom the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European convention on human rights and its protocols and by the international covenant on civil and political rights, and would establish a United Kingdom human rights commission with powers to initiate legal proceedings for the protection of these rights and for connected purposes.
It is about 40 years since a Labour Government under the prime ministership of Clement Attlee acceded to the European convention. The convention had been drafted largely by an English lawyer—Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe—who was subsequently to become Lord Chancellor in a Conservative Government. In 1966, the Government of Mr. Harold Wilson—as he then was—provided that a right of individual petition to the European Commission and Court of Human Rights should be granted. Since then, the United Kingdom Government have had to defend many cases in Strasbourg before the Commission and that Court.
There have been a number of attempts in Parliament—three times in another place and twice in recent years in this place—to secure the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the domestic law of our country, to ensure that citizens whose fundamental rights and freedoms have been abridged or attacked by an abuse of public power or by the tyranny of the majority should be permitted to have access to our own domestic courts for a remedy. The guarantee of these rights without the provision of such a remedy is basically meaningless.
We stand alone in Europe—the only country among the members of the Council of Europe which does not offer such a fundamental protection in the form of a basic law which may be used to strike down the action or abuse of power by Ministers, public authorities or even Parliament itself.
Sir Teddy Taylor(Southend, East) Or the European Community itself.
Mr. Maclennan: In the free democratic Commonwealth, there is no country that does not give the rights that the Bill seeks to promote. The last country which stood with us in not having a Bill of Rights was New Zealand; in 1990, New Zealand enacted a Bill of Rights.
This country and this Parliament have legislated for others to secure that right. We did so for the people of Canada and, most recently, last summer, we did so for the people of Hong Kong. But we have not sought to protect our own citizens by means of a measure which is necessary and which we have recognised as necessary in other civilised parliamentary democracies.
The case for such legislation is now strong. I make no partisan points about the abuses of power that have disfigured the present Government, for there have been abuses by both parties of Government. In the past two years, there have been five serious breaches of the rights of the citizen, and judgment has been found against this country by the court in Strasbourg. A further six cases have been deemed admissible before the court by the European Commission of Human Rights.
These are not light matters; they are not academic matters. They touch on the very fundamentals of our freedoms. They affect the right of association, and the freedom of trade unionists not to be part of a closed shop. They touch on freedom of education—the right not to be dragooned against one's will into sending one's children to a school not of one's choice. They govern freedom of expression, and the entitlement of newspapers and the other media to publicise abuses, as The Sunday Times did with the thalidomide case.
Those are the important rights which protect—or should protect—our citizens in this democracy. But before people obtain a remedy they have to take the long and expensive course to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—a typical case takes up to six years. That cannot be right. The time has come to ensure that the procedures for securing those rights are simpler.
The Bill asks British judges in the nations of this country to adjudicate to protect citizens from abuse. That judges are capable of so doing has been demonstrated already, by their readiness, when they sit as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to give effect to Bills of Rights enacted by other countries in the Commonwealth. Judges also have increasing experience of giving effect to the broad principles of those rights when enacted by the European Community's legislative process.
It is ironic that the European Court of Justice is recognising the binding effect of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in its procedures, and so, indirectly, our judges are called upon to give effect to those rights in commercial cases. But perhaps the most important cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights are not commercial cases but those that touch upon the family and the individual.
The time has come to move. British public opinion is clear, because, in an opinion poll published by MORI in The Independent in October, 79 per cent. of the British people favoured such a step.
The Bill is unlikely to reach the statute book in the latter part of this Parliament, but it can signal to the public the readiness of Parliament to make good a deficiency that has stood for too long.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Menzies Campbell and Sir David Steel.

Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
  PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
  Mr. Robert Maclennan accordingly presented a Bill to secure to every person within the United Kingdom the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention of Human Rights and its protocols, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and certain other rights and freedoms; to ensure that there are effective remedies before the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom for breaches of these fundamental rights and freedoms; to give such fundamental rights and freedoms the same precedence and priority within the legal systems of the United Kingdom as are given to enforceable Community rights under section 2(1) and (4) of the European Communities Act 1972; to establish a United Kingdom Human Rights Commission with power to initiate legal proceedings for the protection of these fundamental rights and freedoms and to give advice and assistance concerning the protection of these rights; to enable the Human Rights Commission to challenge the validity of any provision of any Act of Parliament that in its opinion is in contravention of the guarantees of the fundamental rights and freedoms secured by this act by instituting legal proceedings in the High Court, the Court of Session or the High Court of Northern Ireland as the case requires; to enable the Human Rights Commission to examine legislation or proposed legislation for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and to report any such inconsistency to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

Points of Order
3.45 pm
Mr. Speaker: Before I ask the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day, I have a point of order from Sir Richard Body.
Sir Richard Body: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before we proceed with the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, your attention will have no doubt been drawn to the fact that, if passed, the Bill will enable a sum of no less than £450 million to be given to the Commission of the European Community. That money is necessary because the Community has illegally spent that sum of money. It therefore follows that we are seeking to condone something that is illegal.
Am I not right in saying that, under Standing Order No. 54, we are debarred from debating that fact for one reason only—that the Bill has been made the first Order of the Day? If it had appeared as the second Order of the Day, we would be able to debate it fully until 10 o'clock.
Although I hope that I would be the last to question the bona fides of those who manage the business of the House—I am not suggesting for one moment that they are using the procedures of the House to prevent a debate on the Bill—is there nothing that could be done now to make the Bill appear as the second Order of the Day? In that way, we could debate it.
Failing that, are there any steps that could be taken by you, Sir, to enable us to voice our objections to the Bill and to enable the public to be more widely informed about their money, the £450 million, which is being handed over for something that has been illegally spent?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If hon. Members will allow, I shall deal with that point of order, because it might save time.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) is correct: under Standing Order No. 54(1), I am bound to put the Question forthwith on both the Second and Third Readings. The hon. Gentleman may regret what the Government have done in this matter, but it is a matter for them, not for me. However, when I put the Question, the hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes, could vote against it.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does it not say in Standing Order No. 54 that, if the Government choose, they can move the Adjournment of the House to enable a discussion to take place? There are several reasons why undoubtedly that should be done.
First, we are dealing with the illegal spending of £450 million, which is effectively equivalent to about £8 per head of the population of the United Kingdom. It is a great deal of money. Secondly, we know that the EEC is illegally withholding a great deal of cash due to the British Treasury. Thirdly, we know from the news today that the EEC plans to double the contribution of £2·5 billion which we have to make this year—that means that the contribution of £4 per family per week to the EEC will increase to £8.
If we cannot discuss such things, surely it means that Parliament is basically becoming useless. We cannot discuss the expenditure of money on an unlawful purpose—it was stated to be unlawful by the Treasury in its paper that we discussed late the other night. If the Government wanted to discuss the matter, could they not simply use Standing Order No. 54 to move the Adjournment? We

983
could then debate one of the most serious issues—the legality of the EC and how money is taken from British taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker: Whether the Adjournment motion is moved is a question for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I have no authority to compel them to do that.
Sir Teddy Taylor: But they could do so.
Mr. Speaker: Well, they could.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order, the Bill reflects exactly what the House agreed to last week, and that is all that it could do. If further payments of the same kind were required, the Government would have to present a new estimate, and a further Bill would then be necessary.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cryer first, please.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a paper presented to the House when the matter was debated, the Treasury made it clear that it admitted that part of that money was illegal and subject to a challenge in the European Court. Under those circumstances, is it proper for Parliament to proceed to vote on that expenditure when part of it is challenged as being of dubious legality? There must be a Standing Order whereby the matter can at least be deferred rather than involve Parliament in a clear illegality, or an attempt to support one.
Mr. Speaker: I recollect selecting an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on that very matter last week. The House divided on it, and the decision of the House was taken.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Trade and Industry questions, you told the House that it must proceed by debate rather than by visual aids after I had shown a banned advertisement by the British Medical Association. May I seek clarification on that? There has been a long and honourable tradition of using visual aids in the House. An hon. Member once brought in a battery hen cage to illustrate the cruelty of battery cages and there have been many other examples. Although I realise that they could be abused because of television cameras in the House, can we not have the same right to use visual aids that was permitted before cameras came to the House?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: We shall have a dead fox here on Friday.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) casts his mind back to our debates on whether the House should be televised, he will remember that concern was expressed on both sides about the display of visual aids. Although the hon. Gentleman is technically correct to say that it is not out of order to display such items, I believe that it would be deprecated by the whole House if visual aids were generally used. After all, from what the hon. Gentleman wants, it is a small move to Members displaying advertisements for Coca-Cola, for example.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the previous point of order, Mr. Speaker. In last week's debate, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked whether the consent of the House was required. He said that the Government have their hands in our pockets again and the Minister in charge of the debate replied:
"I do not have my hands in your pockets, but Europe does."—[Official Report, 5 February 1992; Vol. 203, c. 260.]
So the Government have admitted that Europe is putting its hands illegally into our pockets. Surely we should have time to debate that.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may be right about what was said, but I have no authority to change the procedures. I am bound by them.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been occasions when similar situations have occurred and it has been pretty clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tried to press on you the need to get the business changed, and you have taken that into account.
You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House has not even turned up. We are discussing £450 million of illegal expenditure by the tinpot Common Market. You were not elected by the Common Market; you represent Parliament. What is happening in, or should I say over, your name today is that the Government are allowing £450 million to go through on the nod. You know only too well what will happen: when the Division bells ring after we have shouted no to the expenditure, the shop stewards—the Whips—of the Tory party will be on the Doors to shovel Tory Members through to gain a victory. It is a scandal, and you should suspend the Sitting in order that some discussion can take place.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman well knows that I am bound by the Standing Orders of the House, whatever my own feelings on any matter may be.
Several Hon. Members: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any more help on that.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it on museums?
Mr. Banks: No, it is on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill. It is sometimes useful to know what one is voting for or against. Will you, Mr. Speaker, advise me on this matter? Clause 2 states:
"The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1993 the sum of £1,000."
One cannot get much for £1,000 these days—not even if one happens to be the Queen. If additional sums beyond the £1,000 to go to Her Majesty are requested, will the permission of the House be sought?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that that is a token amount, which was fully debated last week.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak not because I have had my name mentioned but to say that, whenever we as Back Benchers have the opportunity to complain about what goes on in

985
this place, we have to come to you. You are the protector of the Back Bencher. We have complained time and time again about European affairs being dealt with in the early hours of the morning. We have an opportunity to discuss that problem at this earlier time of day and the Government are denying Back Benchers the right to express their view on it. Come on, Mr. Speaker, get off your backside and do something about it!
Mr. Speaker: I think what we should be doing today is discussing the Standing Orders—I am bound by them and cannot go beyond them.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the debate on 4 February was limited to an hour and a half, took place late at night and many Members who wished to speak were debarred from doing so? From the remarks that you have already made, it seems that it would be possible for the Government representatives to stay seated and say, "Not moved," so that the matter can come back and be placed second on the Order Paper on another day, and be debated. Is that the position?
Mr. Speaker: That could happen.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND [NO. 2] BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills):—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 50.

  Division NO. 79]

  [3.57 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Alexander, Richard

  Hague, William

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

  Allason, Rupert

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Amos, Alan

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hannam, Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Ashby, David

  Harris, David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hayes, Jerry

  Atkins, Robert

  Hayward, Robert

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Beith, A. J.

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hind, Kenneth

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Benyon, W.

  Howells, Geraint

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Boswell, Tim

  Irvine, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Jack, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Jackson, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Jessel, Toby

  Brazier, Julian

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

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

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Butler, Chris

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Knapman, Roger

  Carrington, Matthew

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Cartwright, John

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Latham, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Colvin, Michael

  Lightbown, David

  Conway, Derek

  Livsey, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lord, Michael

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

  Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mackay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Dunn, Bob

  Maclennan, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Evennett, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Mans, Keith

  Fearn, Ronald

  Marland, Paul

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Sir Robin

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Franks, Cecil

  Miscampbell, Norman

  French, Douglas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gale, Roger

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Montogomery, Sir Fergus

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Moss, Malcolm

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Neale, Sir Gerrard

  Gorst, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  987

  Norris, Steve

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Sumberg, David

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pawsey, James

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Price, Sir David

  Tracey, Richard

  Raffan, Keith

  Tredinnick, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Trippier, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wallace, James

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rowe, Andrew

  Watts, John

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Salmond, Alex

  Whitney, Ray

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilshire, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Wood, Timothy

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stephen, Nicol

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. David Davis.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ashton, Joe

  Leighton, Ron

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  McAllion, John

  Battle, John

  McMaster, Gordon

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Madden, Max

  Beggs, Roy

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Bottomley, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Nellist, Dave

  Caborn, Richard

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Carttiss, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Conway, Derek

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Cousins, Jim

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Cran, James

  Redmond, Martin

  Cummings, John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dicks, Terry

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Spearing, Nigel

  Farr, Sir John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Flynn, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Worthington, Tony

  Gordon, Mildred

  Wray, Jimmy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Graham, Thomas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hinchliffe, David

  Sir Richard Body and

  Kilfedder, James

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Severn Bridges Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Severn Bridges Bill
    Clause 2

      ACQUISITION AND OCCUPATION OF LAND
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
      ("(1A) Nothing in this section authorises the Secretary of State to acquire compulsorily any of the land in the City of Bristol shown numbered 25,41 or 42 on the deposited plans.")
      4.8 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      It may be for the convenience of the House if I also address the amendments Nos. 2 to 6. They are all protective provisions for the benefit of statutory undertakers or other third parties of the sort typically found in hybrid and private legislation. They were made by the Select Committee in another place, at the Government's request. The Government had agreed to promote the amendments on the strength of the agreement of the third parties concerned to withdraw their various petitions against the Bill.
      I emphasise that none of the amendments does anything other than impose minor conditions and restrictions on the proposed powers of the Secretary of State, which were already provided for in the Bill as it left this House. The Government are happy to accept these amendments for the proper protection of all parties concerned, and are confident that they will not adversely affect implementation of the Bill's proposals. Accordingly, I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Paul Murphy:I am delighted to say that the Opposition also agree with the Lords amendments. They affect the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) who is at present chairing the Welsh Grand Committee.
      The amendments affect the community action group whose petition, signed by some 518 people, was presented to their Lordships. They also received another petition from Mr. and Mrs. North from that community. Another 15 petitions were withdrawn. They were naturally concerned about the environmental issues affecting the route on the Welsh side of the estuary, such as the visual impact, the noise from the toll plaza and the atmospheric pollution. Their Lordships accepted some of those points and the Department of Transport talked of compensation and an additional screen and I hope that those commitments will be met. As much assurance as possible should be given to local residents and we agree with the amendments, which should go some way to achieving that.
      We have some general reservations about the level of tolls on the bridge and the level of accountability, but we agree that there is a considerable need in Wales for a second crossing to assist our beleaguered economy.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Museums and Galleries Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.11 pm
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This has been a great year for the national museums and galleries funded by my office, an annus mirabilis which comes after a period of substantial change in which trustees, new directors, curators, warders and staff have accepted the challenge to present their collections to the public in a way that invites scholars and pedagogues to continue their studies within their walls and, most important, excites the public and encourages, tempts and invites the pensioner, parent and child to spend a Saturday afternoon there rather than go to the cinema or football match. I commend the trustees, directors and museum staff for rising to the new age.
  Museums and galleries are in a challenging business. They compete with libraries, theme parks, historic homes and even sports grounds as places where education, scholarship and entertainment must mix, where new visions are displayed and new horizons opened up.
  That message was true in late Victorian times when galleries were being built by public subscription and private patronage to show pictures to the public for the first time, and when the great range of museums was built in South Kensington, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool and Edinburgh, to name but a few. An afternoon out then was often an afternoon at the museum or art gallery.
  That message was somewhat lost in the 1960s and 1970s. It is now again a vital part of the approach of the professional director and his or her increasingly well-trained team. It is an approach that has been enormously encouraged by the many initiatives taken by my well-respected predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), and myself.
  To name but a few of those initiatives there is the funding of the Museums Training Institute which was established by my right hon. Friend in order to develop agreed occupational standards and qualifications for the museum sector. We give grant in aid to the Museums and Galleries Commission, which, among other things, administers the museum registration scheme which sets basic common standards for all sizes and types of museums. It also provides money for the area museum councils, which in turn give advice to non-national local museums on improving their collections and services to the public. I take the opportunity provided by this rare debate on museums and galleries to thank all those working in those different institutes, commissions and councils.
  The Bill is especially concerned with four leading institutions funded directly by my office—the national gallery, Tate gallery, national portrait gallery, and Wallace collection.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: Before the Minister describes his Bill, I refer to his grandiloquent statement that this has been an annus mirabilis for museums. What has been so special about this year, and what has the Minister done in respect of the obvious difficulty confronted by museums in finding sufficient funds to enter the market to buy new works of
  990
  art, and to meet Lord Palumbo's target for the fabric of museums? The steps taken seem rather tiny, and the Minister's claim may be thought inflated.
  Mr. Renton: As the hon. Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency, he will know—although this is not one of my responsibilities—that during this year, the national museum of Scotland in Edinburgh will award the design for the extension to its great building. I understand that it is already making a public appeal and seeking funds from the Scottish Office. That is a good example in the hon. Gentleman's home country. As to the rest, the hon. Gentleman anticipates my speech. I will talk about some specific successes in national museums and galleries in the part of my speech that I am about to reach.
  The first of the four of my client institutions is the national gallery. Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House know that Her Majesty the Queen graciously opened its new Sainsbury wing in 1991. Anyone who was present on that occasion, or who has visited the wing since, will agree that it establishes a superb background against which the gallery's quattrocento and cinquecento paintings can be hung.
  The wing was made possible entirely by the generous gifts of the three brothers John, Simon, and Tim Sainsbury—the latter otherwise known to us as the right hon. Member for Hove. Rightly and properly, they have been described as modern Medicis for their generosity in making that wing available. I have no doubt that the Medicis would warmly approve the background against which the beautiful pietà Serena and other early renaissance pictures are now hung.
  There have also been several gallery refurbishments, helped by individual sponsorship—notably that of Mr. Wohl; Agnew; the former American ambassador, Mr. Annenberg; and Hazlitt, Gooden and Fox—whose refurbished galleries I was pleased to visit just the other day.
  I have been able to allocate an extra £500,000 for roof and services work, in addition to the substantial other sums made available by my office to the national gallery. You, Mr. Speaker, would not want me to leave the subject of that gallery without referring to the outstanding exhibition of more than 70 paintings from Heinz Berggruen's internationally famous private collection. I congratulate the gallery's retired chairman, Lord Rothschild, and its director, Neil MacGregor, on their skill in persuading Heinz Berggruen to lend those great pictures for at least five years.
  Mr. Tony Banks: While we are all deeply grateful to these fat cats for all the money that they have put into the arts, can the Minister tell us whether they enjoy any tax breaks for being so munificent with the money that they have garnered in the check-outs of the supermarkets that they run?
  Mr. David Enwright: On Sundays.
  Mr. Banks: Yes, on Sundays.
  Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who follows these matters closely and who probably does some of his shopping at these supermarkets, even on Sunday—
  Mr. Banks: No.
  Mr. Renton: —will know that these generous donations were made from the extensive number of charitable trusts formed by members of the Sainsbury family in recent years, which have helped many an institution, not just the national gallery.
  Next on my list is the Tate gallery. Apart from many improvements at Millbank itself, in the past two years the Tate has spread its wings into more distant parts of the country. In 1988 the Tate gallery Liverpool was opened, thus helping the process of regeneration around the Albert dock in Liverpool. This follows the Government's policy of increasing public access to the nation's collections. I congratulate the trustees of the Tate on the vigorous programme of displays at Liverpool which has made the Tate's 20th century art available to a new regional audience.
  This year the Tate gallery in St. Ives is being built. I have given the Tate an extra £100,000 to help begin operations there. Extra Government money—
  Mr. Tony Banks: On whose behalf?
  Mr. Renton: On behalf of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. I had him particularly in mind, knowing his interest in the St. Ives school of painting. Extra Government money has been allocated for refurbishment work at Millbank.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: While the Minister takes credit for his Government's involvement in the excellent Tate in Liverpool, will he explain to the House and to those who admire this gallery why, when the Tate applied to him last November for an additional £600,000 to continue its work at the Tate in the north, he provided only £300,000?
  Mr. Renton: Even the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with his known ability to scatter taxpayers' money here, there and everywhere regardless of consequences in cost, will have been told by his sources that I gave the Tate half the requested sum,£ 300,000, and urged it to use its own best housekeeping endeavours to ensure that sufficient of the remainder could be found in order to make certain that the Tate in Liverpool remains fully open. I understand that this is the course of action that the director and trustees are likely to follow. So prudence allied with generosity is likely to have an appropriate reward.
  At Millbank we have seen excellent special exhibitions in the past few months: Constable sponsored by Barclays bank; an exhibition of Sir Anthony Caro's sculptures, sponsored by KPMG; and next week the third version of "New Displays", sponsored by British Petroleum, which enables the Tate to rotate works from its collection for display. I am delighted that the extensive gallery, which has been refurbished thanks to the generosity of Nomura, is now complete and is likely to open shortly.
  As to the national portrait gallery, with Government support and encouragement it has embarked on a gallery development plan that will increase exhibition space by 37 per cent. We provided additional buildings on Orange street behind the gallery, together with £3·5 million towards the plan. The gallery has a successful appeal under way and has held some notable exhibitions such as "The Portrait in British Art", sponsored by Enterprise Oil.
  I mention these sponsors to show the House the wide variety of British businesses which are now prepared to
  992
  work hand in hand with the Government, with the funds made available by the Office of Arts and Libraries, because they see that sponsorship of the arts falls increasingly within the practice and objects of their companies and helps to promote their corporate image, as well as being extremely helpful to the art institute involved. That is why we have seen over the past 15 years business sponsorship of the arts grow from barely £500,000 in the mid-1970s to well over £40 million now.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I have been a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts almost since the outset. We produced a major report on public and private funding of the arts, and it was obvious to every member of the Committee and everyone who read the report just how important public money was. Without public money, the arts could hardly exist.
  While preparing our report on charges for entrance to galleries and museums, we visited the Louvre. That was the only subject, in the history of the Select Committee, on which the Opposition chose to produce a minority report. Lord Rothschild, of the national gallery, and Neil MacGregor were both opposed to the Government's view: neither wanted charges. The Victoria and Albert museum told us that the money that it received from the Government was not even sufficient to deal with the fabric of the museum, and that it was deeply worried.
  Will the Minister please stop being so lyrical? Much as we want sponsorship, it is quite insufficient to deal with the problems, as is the money from the Government.
  Mr. Renton: Of course public funding plays a part. That is why I was delighted to inform the House, only a few weeks ago, that, for the third year running my Department had been able to give the Arts Council a record increase. That shows the Government's commitment to supporting the arts. In the year ahead, the Arts Council will receive a 14 per cent. increase—an extra £27 million.
  I shall deal with the question of charging later in my speech, and if the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) wants to ask any further questions after that he is welcome to do so. I was interested to learn that the Select Committee had visited the Louvre. The Louvre charges for entrance and, having used the money to fund an expensive capital expansion programme, it is now in the process of tripling the number of admissions. It is not the charge that puts people off visiting a gallery or museum; they are put off if a collection is not interestingly displayed. The Louvre's is a perfect example of a charging policy that works.
  Mr. Flannery rose—
  Mr. Renton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman returns to this point when I have made my own specific comments. He has said that he has to go to a meeting.
  Mr. Flannery: We visited the Louvre precisely because it charged for entrance. It has charged ever since the introduction of the Napoleonic code, and it is therefore impossible to compare France with other countries in which charges have never been imposed.
  Sir Robert Peel said that the purpose of the national gallery was to allow people who could not afford to put pictures on their walls to look at them free of charge—and he was a noble Tory, to say the least. When, for instance,

  993
  the national museum of Wales introduced charges, admissions fell by 80 per cent. When charges are introduced, the people who have no art in their houses are the ones who stop visiting galleries. That is what the Government have done.
  Mr. Renton: I now regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman again. He has simply repeated his earlier points. The Prado in Madrid charges; so does the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. Very few national museums do not.
  Mr. Flannery rose—
  Mr. Renton: I have given the hon. Gentleman two bites at the cherry. He should now listen to the answer. By charging, and by turning from direct vote to grant in aid, we have enabled museums and galleries to decide to charge if they wish. It is their decision, not ours. We do not insist that, for instance, the Victoria and Albert museum charge for entrance. That is up to the trustees, who may decide that charging would provide additional revenue with which they could mount special collections and special exhibitions from all over the world. That decision was taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham and, as I shall demonstrate in a few moments, it has been very well justified by the results.
  It is with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman that I say that he should take his head out of the sand and look around the world to see what is happening in all the leading museums and galleries.
  The Wallace collection is, of course, unique. As hon. Members will know, it is a remarkable collection of 18th-century paintings and furniture, put together at a time when, perhaps, British collecting was at its height, and given to the nation through the generosity of the Hertford family. The largest room there must be one of the finest galleries in the world. I am delighted that the collection is in such good shape. Recent repairs to the roof were carried out with Government support.
  Having spoken of the four particular museums and galleries that are covered by the Bill, I think with very great pleasure of the many visits that I have made over the past year to other museums and galleries—national, local and independent—throughout the country. In almost all cases I was much impressed by the vigour and the enterprising spirit with which the collections are being shown off. In this manner the museums and galleries are seeking to attract a larger proportion of people who are looking for things to do outside their homes.
  The Liberal spokesman—the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—asked about the refurbishment of national museum and gallery buildings. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that refurbishment is proceeding very well. Nearly £200 million of Government money will be spent on it over the next three years. It is not simply a matter of throwing money at the work to be done; we assess very carefully the forward building programmes. I should like to make special mention of the excellent progress that is being made with the refurbishment of Sir John Soane's museum, which I sponsor. This funding is provided jointly with MEPC plc. There is also the full refurbishment of the south-west wing of the national maritime museum, which is entirely Government funded.
  Help is being given very widely through the museums and galleries improvement fund, which we fund jointly
  994
  with very generous trusts from the Wolfson family. The amount has recently been increased to £20 million, in all, over the next five years, and it is now supporting more than 100 projects in museums up and down the country—in local museums such as the Herbert art gallery in Coventry, the Laing art gallery in Newcastle upon Tyne, the Tolson museum in Huddersfield, the Manchester city art gallery, the Colchester castle museum, and the museum of Dartmoor life in Okehampton.
  In some measure the Bill consolidates the successes that I have mentioned. In a sense it is an accolade to the trustees, the directors and the staffs of the four galleries that are particularly concerned. The Bill is intended primarily to provide wide and explicit powers for the trustees of the national gallery, the Tate, the national portrait gallery and the Wallace collection in order that they may be able to discharge their heavy responsibilities in the modern world. Most decisions are now, rightly, being taken by the trustees and their staffs, especially in relation to building programmes since these were untied from the Property Services Agency in 1988.
  Many large projects and contracts are involved, and it is therefore important that corporate status be provided as it is simply not right that trustees should be individually liable in respect of contracts. A consequence of incorporation is that it is necessary to spell out the new boards' powers and responsibilities explicitly, rather than, as hitherto, expect the boards to rely, for the most part, on the common law of trusteeship. I wish to ensure that, in doing this, we provide a framework in which the new boards of trustees will have the freedom and flexibility to run the galleries in the most beneficial way possible.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House will see that clause 2 maintains certain powers with regard to charging. In particular, it is in line with the Government's policy that trustees themselves should be able to decide whether to make a charge for admission. It sustains their present common law right to make such a charge. As we have just seen, the charging policy of museums and galleries excites much stronger feelings in the House, rather curiously, than it does among the institutions. Evidently the Opposition still take the high-minded attitude that this wicked policy has been imposed on museums and galleries by the Government. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said that Labour would abolish charges on core collections.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Renton: No, not at the moment. I want to complete this section of my speech.
  I say again that the Government do not impose the charges. It is up to each individual institution to decide whether to impose charges, whether for entry to specific exhibitions or generally, and whether to provide concessions for students, pensioners, the disabled and the unemployed. Even those museums and galleries that make a charge have generous arrangements for different categories of people. They provide free admission for pre-booked school parties and concessionary rates for other groups of visitors.
  The institutions that charge have gained greatly from the proceeds raised. They do not go into the Government's coffers; they are used, together with the proceeds from the shop, cafe and sponsorship, for activities that the museums and galleries themselves choose. This additional revenue,

  995
  which amounted last year to £46 million in total, of which £7·3 million related to admission charges, has given each museum and gallery that has decided to charge greater freedom and independence to run its own affairs and to expand in the way that it particularly wants.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Fisher rose—
  Mr. Renton: I have to say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central and also to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, both of whom I see are trying to intervene, that for the Labour party to say publicly in its policy documents that it intends to take away that freedom is like turning the clock back to the days before perestroika was discovered. It is the attitude of backward cavemen who want to take the world back into the dark days because of their own myopia.
  Mr. Fisher: The Minister referred to the benefits that he claims the museums gain, though he knows perfectly well that every single museum that imposes charges would prefer not to do so because it dislikes the reduced attendances that have resulted from the imposition of entrance charges. The Minister says that the museums and galleries have benefited. Why does not he ask the public, who elected both the right hon. Gentleman and his Government as well as all Opposition Members, how they have benefited from the very substantial fall in attendance? The national museum of Wales, we were told, saw a drop of 80 per cent. in attendance when it imposed charges. How does the Minister believe that the public in Wales benefited from charging for entrance to that museum?
  Mr. Renton: After years as shadow Minister for the Arts, the hon. Gentleman shows an ignorance about the subject which appals me. No wonder there is talk that Melvyn Bragg is to become Lord Bragg and Minister for the Arts, if ever there were to be a Labour Government. I am astonished by the hon. Gentleman. Where has he been? Does he not know that, as a result of charging to enter the "Visions of Japan" exhibition, admissions to the V and A went up substantially? As the museum director said, putting on a special exhibition for which the museum imposed a charge attracted many more people into the V and A. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, I fear that he is never going to get any further than his present job as shadow Minister for the Arts.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Renton: I shall give way once more to the hon. Gentleman. Then I must get on with the rest of my speech.
  Mr. Banks: I put it to the Minister that he is being very combative and getting us all worked up, but the fact is that he has not answered the question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). An accusation of high-mindedness is one which I am quite prepared to bear because it was high-mindedness, in many ways, that set up the museums. They were established by people who were considerably more high-minded than the present Government. There is no argument on the Opposition side about charges being imposed for special exhibitions. That is perfectly acceptable. The Minister should not use that as a way of
  996
  trying to rebut the argument. However, when it comes to charging an entrance fee for general admission, no single museum, if given the choice, would impose a charge. Every museum knows, though, that it needs that money because the Government are not giving it the necessary funding.
  Mr. Renton: I despair of Opposition Members who think that they know something about the subject, but in fact know nothing. The Tate and the national gallery have put on specific exhibitions for which they have charged—the Queen's pictures in the national gallery and the Constable collection in the Tate. They said that that brought additional people into the galleries. If the Labour party is stuck with the policy of the 1970s, I realise how much the arts will suffer if it is ever in a position to execute its policies. I am deeply destressed, as is most of the House, at the ignorance shown by Opposition Members.
  In respect of disposals from collections, I have sought to honour the commitment given to the House in 1989 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham that any relevant powers would, as far as possible, be tailor-made to meet the specific requirements of each institution for the optimum management of its collection. [Interruption.] I imagine that that wish might be shared even by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who is speaking from a sedentary position. There is now a much greater willingness to explore other sources of funding to the benefit of the taxpayer. There is a greater emphasis on trading revenue, which was stimulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham's revision of the financing arrangements for national museums and galleries in 1986 in which Government funding was changed from direct vote to grant in aid so that national museums and galleries would be able to retain their self-generated receipts without offsetting reductions in Government grant. Opposition Members should bear that in mind.
  The overall purpose was to provide an opportunity for a larger growth in the total funding available to them than would otherwise be possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham undertook to put grant in aid on a regular legislative basis and that is what the Bill does. Hitherto, it has rested on the annual Appropriation Act. Before my right hon. Friend's far-sighted revision of the arrangements, the national museums and galleries trading receipts had to be surrendered and revoted to them. That was hardly an incentive mechanism and it has been set right in perpetuity by the Bill.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I used to plague him with Adjournment debates on the natural history museum. I know that the powers of disposal for that museum are separate from what we are discussing today. However, since the subject has arisen again in what we read and from what we hear from those involved about the dire position of the South Kensington museum, is there anything that the Minister can say about those who work there and what the future holds for them?
  Mr. Renton: I know of the hon. Gentleman's worries about the natural history museum. He has often spoken of them in the House to my predecessor and myself. The reorganisation of that museum is now well in place and it is benefiting from that. Curation has been strengthened and there is a more effective and efficient advisory service. The impressive ecology gallery has been opened and a new

  997
  dinosaur gallery is planned—[Interruption.] It is typical that the Opposition do not want to hear the facts. Attendance in 1991 was 1·5 million, which is a 2·8 per cent. increase over 1990. I have not been advised of any likely changes in the museum's disposal plans. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific detail about that, perhaps he will write to me. The matter is not covered by the Bill and I should make progress.
  The Bill is broadly similar in structure and provisions to the National Heritage Act 1983 which put the V and A and science museum on a regular footing and the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985. Both those Acts, which had all-party support at the time, have stood the test of time and the Government have therefore chosen to follow a similar path on this occasion.
  It has been recognised for some time that the present statutory basis of the four institutions is deficient. Their powers are often ill-defined and overly rigid in scope—it is impossible to open the Tate restaurant when the gallery is closed and there is no power to have a restaurant at the national portrait gallery. That leads to frustrating uncertainties about what may and may not be done by the trustees.
  The national portrait gallery rests almost entirely on a Treasury minute of 1856. Although the Treasury minute is an excellent document, it may be out of date. The Tate gallery rests, for the most part, on the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act 1954 which set up the Tate as a separate body and allowed for rationalisation of the collections, but provided little else. The Wallace derives a good part of its legal standing from a Treasury minute of 1897. Those and other instruments served their purpose in the beginnings of the galleries, but, in terms of present day requirements, they no longer provide a way forward.
  The Bill falls into four main parts. The first part establishes new incorporated boards of trustees for the national gallery, Tate gallery, national portrait gallery and Wallace collection, deals with their general functions, constitutions and powers, including those to form companies, in three cases—not the Wallace—to acquire and dispose of pictures and other objects and to lend and borrow such objects.
  The House will wish to know that, apart from being able to transfer pictures to other collections, I have taken the view that the national gallery should not be able to dispose of any work of art—other than by way of transfer to another specified collection—because the pictures in its collection are of established merit and significance. In addition, all the pictures are presently hung and it is logical to keep them together.
  Mr. Alistair Darling: The Minister has said on a number of occasions that the Bill deals primarily with the galleries for which his Department is responsible. It also deals with the national gallery of Scotland? Can he explain why the Bill provides for tight policies for disposal of works of art in respect of English galleries, but does not make the corresponding provisions for the national gallery of Scotland? If I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to demonstrate that that will place the national gallery of Scotland at a substantial disadvantage. No Scottish Office Minister has turned up today, but I wonder whether the Minister can deal with that matter, because it is of great concern to the trustees north of the border.
  Mr. Renton: I am aware that the matter has been raised by the trustees, but no specific request has come to me.
  Mr. Darling rose—
  Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman doubting my word?
  Mr. Darling: The Minister has been using the pronoun a great deal today. I can assure him that the Scottish Office was made aware of the trustees' concern some months ago. It would appear that the Scottish Office has been grossly negligent if it has not told his Department, which I assume is primarily responsible for the drafting of the Bill, about that concern. Will the Minister check, before the end of the debate, whether his Department has any knowledge of the Scottish Office being contacted? If the Scottish Office did not even get in touch with his Department, the resentment north of the border will be substantial.
  Mr. Renton: I recognise once again the hectoring and bullying manner that the hon. Gentleman adopted when we met for debates on immigration. I regret that it continues. I am aware that an approach was made to the Scottish Office. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will allow me to finish. It did not come to my office as such, because the first view taken by the Scottish Office was that if such powers were given to the national gallery of Scotland they would render the Bill hybrid. That is the position now.
  Mr. Fisher: The record will show that before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) the Minister said that the Bill gave powers to all three museums to dispose of works, apart from the Wallace collection. If he refers to the Bill, he will see that it does not give powers to the national gallery. I am surprised that he is not a master of the Bill that he is presenting. I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the House.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman either does not listen or does not read. I have taken the view that the national gallery should not be able to dispose of any work of art other than by way of transfer to another specified collection. That is what I said. If the hon. Gentleman listened more carefully and was not so keen to score party-political points, he might absorb the contents of the Bill more easily.
  In keeping with the understanding entered into at the time of the Wallace collection passing to the nation, I propose that it should not be able to acquire or dispose of works of art and that it should remain a closed collection in the terms of the original bequest, which was to be
  "kept together unmixt with other objects".
  The Tate and the national portrait galleries are rather different animals and I propose that they should be given limited powers of disposal. The reasoning for that is reflected in their collections.
  The great majority of the Tate's collection—some 75 per cent.—cannot be hung at any one time. Its collections are also subject to much greater change as its function is to acquire the work largely of contemporary artists. If in the context of changing needs it needs to dispose occasionally of examples of works which overlap or are duplicated, it should have the right to do so. It can then use the resources released to add to the collection in any

  999
  manner that it wishes. I stress that the decision to dispose would be a matter for the trustees and the Government would play no part.
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Renton: I intend to finish my speech. I have been on my feet for a long time and I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will be able to make his point.
  Equally, the proceeds of the disposal would be freely used by it but only to acquire further works of art for its collections. I must also stress that this power in no way signals a Government wish to see a widespread disposal of the Tate's collections. It is a reserve power to be used occasionally and after full consideration by the trustees.
  The Bill provides powers to the national portrait gallery to transfer objects and to dispose of duplicates but in its case I have added, at the trustees' request, a power to enable them—if they so wish—to dispose of portraits when the board is satisfied that the identification of the person portrayed has been discredited—this is to assist them in the proper management of their collection. Again, any money from disposals could be used by the board only to acquire further objects for the collection.
  The second part of the Bill empowers these and other boards of trustees of specified museums, galleries and libraries—all of considerable standing—to transfer objects from their collections to other similarly specified institutions. For the most part, this is sustaining and expanding the transfer provisions of the National and Tate Gallery Act 1954 which the Bill would repeal. It also provides for gifts of works of art to the nation or for the public benefit to be vested in specified institutions and enables Crown land and buildings occupied by specified national museums, galleries and libraries to be transferred to their governing bodies notwithstanding any prohibition or restriction to the contrary. The latter provision is intended, within constraints, to facilitate the trustees to be given ownership of their particular estates, and the policy was announced in another place in 1989.
  These transfers will place a further responsibility on the trustees—that of complying with planning law in respect of alterations to their listed buildings—because at the moment there is Crown exemption. I look to them to make the fullest use of these wonderful buildings as modern museums while preserving the buildings' historic character.
  The third part provides for the payment of grant in aid to certain national museums. I have already mentioned this point and it is a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham because he suggested the idea during his long term as Minister for the Arts. It provides for the payment of grant in aid to certain national museums, galleries and libraries and the Museums and Galleries Commission by the appropriate Minister out of money provided by Parliament, for the keeping of proper records and accounts and the examination and certification of those accounts by the Comptroller and Auditor General and for him to report on those accounts to Parliament.
  Clause 10, which deals with indemnities at greater length, provides for designated institutions to give
  1000
  indemnities when borrowing objects for public exhibition or study and to provide for the financing of those indemnities.
  Under current arrangements, indemnities for works of art loaned to our national museums and galleries are issued by the Office of Arts and Libraries and some other Government Departments, at the request and on the advice of their respective institutions. Senior national museum directors made representations to me last week that they wished the present arrangements to continue. In their representations, they have acknowledged the speed with which indemnities are issued by my office and the prompt advice given on tricky problems, especially indemnity applications from foreign lenders.
  Clause 10 was drawn up following an undertaking by my right hon. Friend in response to previous representations to empower national museums and galleries to issue their own indemnities, but in the light of representations made to me at the end of last week, I intend to table an amendment at the Committee stage withdrawing clause 10 and substituting a new clause which will make technical improvements to the National Heritage Act 1980 in the matter of reporting liabilities and the need only to approve borrowers, not lenders.
  The fourth part deals with minor and supplemental matters, but I would not wish the House to overlook the provision, at the request of the trustees, to change the name of the British museum (natural history) to the natural history museum by which it has come generally to be known, an important marker in its successful development as a separate body with an international reputation.
  The board of trustees of the armouries was set up by the National Heritage Act 1983, but, unlike some bodies, was not then given the power to form companies. The Bill would give the board those powers, which are already enjoyed by similar bodies, and also allow it to make grants for appropriate purposes.
  Other provisions of the Bill deal with particular Welsh institutions and certain provisions extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  In conclusion—
  Mr. Toby Jessel: My hon. Friend referred five minutes ago to the payment of grants. Will he take note of the fact that many of us on the Back Benches very much hope that the Government will introduce measures to make possible the creation of a national lottery which will throw up substantial funds for the refurbishment, repair and maintenance and construction of museum buildings in the national interest? Will he not only take note of that but convey it to the Government as a whole, in the hope that they will have a Bill ready on the stocks for early implementation in the very first Session of the new Parliament for our Governmnent to introduce?
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. RentonTo judge from that response, I think that my hon. Friend has a great deal of support in the House. If we were to add those provisions to the Bill, I fear that we might not fall within the long title of the Bill. However, I very much support and understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for a national lottery.
  The time has come to build further on the foundations of the achievements of the trustees and professional staffs, the public's growing interest and the Government's

  1001
  profound commitment to the future of these great institutions. It is important to ensure that the trustees of the four galleries have the powers to underpin that future. The Bill does that and more, and I hope that it will be warmly received.
  I found on my desk a little sticker which states "Vote for the Arts", issued by the National Campaign for the Arts. I have no doubt that by voting for the Bill and for the Conservatives' record of achievement the arts will prosper far more than they would under the dogmatic, doctrinaire, interfering and bureaucratic solutions proposed by Labour. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.57 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I think that the Minister has set a record in the House by making what was probably one of the longest Second Reading speeches for one of the shortest Bills. He entertained the House for 47 minutes. He gave way generously to many hon. Members—and I am sure that they appreciated it— but I suspect that we were hearing the Ministers swan song. I suspect that that was the last time that he will make a speech as Minister for the Arts, and I do not think that the House would begrudge him a longer time to say his farewells. He has not held the post very long but he has worked hard and the arts world has appreciated that.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Patronise him, patronise him.
  Mr. Fisher: I thank my hon. Friend. However, it was a long swan song for a short Bill. I do not think that many hon. Members would criticise the length of the speech but they and members of the museum and arts worlds outside would criticise the Bill's contents.
  We have heard 47 minutes of the most extraordinary self-congratulation and complacency that can have ever been heard. I do not believe that the museum world will recognise the picture of the Government's stewardship that the Minister sought to paint. He knows very well from the deputations of trustees and directors of national galleries and of galleries and museums around the country that they have been hugely critical of the Government's neglect. I do not understand how the Government can paint the picture that they have.
  The real context of the Bill is more likely to be portrayed by the fact that last year the Tate gallery—one of the four galleries covered by the Bill—was able to purchase one picture on behalf of the nation. That is all that it could afford under this Government.
  The Minister referred to the detail in the Bill, and that specifically charges the Tate gallery to
  "care for, preserve and add to"
  its collection. Yet the Government's stewardship of the Tate has allowed it to add one picture last year. That is the background of neglect against which we must realise that the Bill is being introduced.
  The Opposition undoubtedly welcome most of the Bill. Its provisions have been around for about three years, since the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) introduced measures and ideas along those lines. Almost all those provisions command bipartisan support. We welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill, and we shall not oppose it.
  However, as the Minister said, the Bill raises important questions about the structure and accountability of the four galleries concerned, about their finances and obligations, about their ability to trade and to acquire and
  1002
  dispose of works of art, and about their liabilities and indemnities in the event of any damage. The way in which the Government have handled those matters tells us much about their attitude to museums.
  The Government probably have the worst record on looking after museums of any Government since the war. It could be said that they have abandoned whole areas of their responsibility to the national museums. The fact that the Minister started his speech by talking about an annus mirabilis will have been met with incredulity outside the House. Members of the public reading his speech will claw through its 47 minutes looking for anything that has happened in the past year for which the Government can claim credit.
  The Minister rightly said that good things have happened—such as the extremely good directorship of all four collections, most notably of the national gallery under Mr. Neil MacGregor, and of the Tate gallery under Mr. Nicholas Serota. But all that good work has happened in spite of the Government—mainly because of the way in which the museums have worked intelligently with sponsors to help them to realise their ideals.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most exciting regional museum to be opened last year—it was opened last May by Her Majesty the Queen—was the Tullie House museum in Carlisle? That excellent museum was conceived by the Labour-controlled council despite Conservative opposition.
  Mr. Fisher: Yes. The Tullie House museum undoubtedly made last year a special year for the north of England. It is exciting when a brand-new public sector museum opens. Having visited Tullie House, I can confirm that, as my hon. Friend says, it is remarkable, and I commend it to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It contains an extraordinary collection, beautifully presented, and any hon. Members who find themselves in Carlisle would do well to spend a few hours there. They would enjoy themselves very much.
  In spite of the Government's hostility to local authorities, and their attitude to local authority finance, local authorities have managed to expand the service in that way—yet the Government have not. It is true that things have happened above the ground at the Tate, but the Government's responsibilities for its fabric—the wiring, the structure, the roofs and so on—have been appallingly neglected.
  The Government are in an extraordinarily poor position to congratulate themselves on an annus mirabilis. The Minister made a half-hearted attempt to justify that claim, but he could not identify anything that he or the Government had positively done.
  I should like to examine one or two points, and invite the Minister to comment upon them before the Bill receives a Second Reading. The Minister skated over the details of the boards. Their size satisfies everybody—they are small—and the boards of trustees of all the museums have shown that they have the right ability and expertise, and are working well. However, the Minister knows that all the galleries—certainly the Tate and the national gallery—have told him strongly that the Government have the term of the trusteeships wrong.
  The Bill says that the term of a trusteeship should be five years, yet, as the Minister knows, the director of the Tate gallery, and the trustees of the Tate and of the

  1003
  national galleries have made strong representations that, for good sound reasons, that term should be seven years. The trustees and the directors say that it takes two to three years to get the feel of the responsibilities—those responsibilities are considerably greater these days—and to work one's way in and become able to contribute fully. To identify a new chairperson for the board, or to derive full value from bringing on those trustees, five years is too short.
  The Minister may say that the trusteeship can be renewed for a further five years, but I see no reason why he has resisted the expert opinion of the trustees and directors of the museums. The term appears to have been fixed on the Minister's personal whim. I am not sure whether he received any evidence from anybody else—from the Museums and Galleries Commission, or from any board of trustees or any director—to support his idea for a period of five years.
  If the Minister can identify any objective professional evidence that five years is the period needed, that would be very interesting, but I believe that all the expert evidence that he received supported a period of seven years. It is extraordinary that the Minister should take it into his head that he knows better than people in the museums world, and impose upon them a period that nobody asked for—indeed, everybody asked for the opposite. Perhaps he will answer those questions when he replies.
  Clause 4 is undoubtedly the key to the Bill. It deals with disposals, and the implications of disposals. For the first time the Bill gives galleries powers of disposal, subject to certain conditions—or rather it gives such powers to the Tate and the national portrait gallery, but not to the Wallace collection or the national gallery.
  The Opposition have no quarrel with the principle of disposal, leaving aside the financial implications. Undoubtedly, if Parliament empowers trustees and directors to use their artistic judgment and professional experience to acquire works of art on behalf of their galleries, it is logical to trust them to use that same judgment to dispose of works of art. In a neutral world, unaffected by other considerations, that would be correct. We should trust the judgment of people such as Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Serota.
  However, there are genuine fears. The Minister knows that opinion is well split in the museums world. The national gallery told the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Shoreham—no doubt the arguments were repeated to the Minister personally by many of the trustees and directors of the museums—that they did not want powers of disposal—not because they did not trust their own intellectual judgment, but, following the line set down in the Museums and Galleries Commission's 1988 report on the national gallery, because those powers should not be forced on the galleries. The trustees asked that Parliament should not confer such powers on them.
  That was the view of the MGC in 1988, and I understand that it remains the view of many of the directors, not because of the matter of intellectual judgment or scholarship, but because of fears that the Government will seek to put pressure on their finances.
  The Minister has gone some way towards allaying those fears by adding the proviso that any money from disposals should be used for the acquisition of further works.
  1004
  However, that leaves the galleries open to pressure, when they come to the Minister and make points such as that which I made at the beginning of my speech—saying, for instance, that last year the Tate gallery could buy only one work of art. In future the Minister will be able to refer to the Bill and say, "Parliament has given you the power to dispose of works of art, if you wish to acquire more—and, in using those receipts from disposals, you are specifically confined to making further acquisitions.
  If those at the Tate do not believe that the acquisition of one picture a year is sufficient to keep its contemporary art collection up to date, the Government could tell them to use the powers in the Bill to dispose of works of art. Directors of galleries are worried about that.
  The Minister may say that that argument is unreasonable. He may turn the argument on those galleries by saying that, in effect, they are admitting that they do not have any works of art that are available or appropriate for disposal. The Minister might then argue, with some validity, that huge revenue is not to be gained from such disposals. That would be a good debating ploy. However, the fact is that if the directors of galleries wish to raise money the Minister can refer them to the Bill and powers contained in clause 4. That is worrying in view of the way in which the Government have handled the purchasing grant—the acquisition grant—of the galleries in the past few years.
  As part of the Minister's annus mirabilis—no doubt he would say that there have been 12 anni mirabilis; I think that that is right—
  Mr. Gerald Bowden indicated assent.
  Mr. Fisher: I am glad that I got that right.
  In the past seven years, the acquisition grants of the galleries have been frozen. The national portrait gallery now gets £310,000. In cash terms that is exactly the same as the amount it received seven years ago. The Tate gallery gets £1·8 million, which is exactly the same as it got in 1984–85. The national gallery gets £2·75 million, the same as it received seven years ago and rather less than it received 10 years ago. During that time the allocation to that gallery has been reduced, and subsequently frozen. The Wallace is the exception because it has not been asked to increase its collection. The other three galleries, however, have experienced a Government who have said, effectively, "We don't want you to buy works of art. We believe that your acquisition money should be frozen at the 1984 level." However, the Bill requires those galleries to buy works of art, but it will take a long time to make such acquisitions.
  Sir Timothy Raison: Surely the test of all this is not necessarily how big the Government grant for acquisitions is but what the galleries are able to acquire. I would support strongly a bigger Government grant for acquisitions because there are many good uses to which it could be put. Although the national gallery has had a limited grant, it has, by various means available to it, acquired not only a marvellous new building, but many great works of art.
  Mr. Fisher: I was just about to make that point and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman raised it.
  Given the way in which the grant works, the national gallery is only able to buy works on instalments. The right hon. Gentleman follows such matters closely and he will be

  1005
  aware that the typical price of the major works that the national gallery must buy is several millions. At the moment that gallery is engaged—I use the word advisedly —in purchasing an important Cuyp landscape. It is worth £8 million and the gallery has had to purchase it through three annual instalments negotiated with the previous owners. That is the only way it can acquire that one work. In addition to the third instalment on the Cuyp, the national gallery has made the first instalment on a Cranage painting. That is the way in which the gallery has to operate.
  If the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) inquires of the trustees arid directors of either the national or the Tate he will be told in no uncertain terms that it is extremely unsatisfactory that they cannot acquire the sort of painting that they need to keep their collections fresh and up to date. They will also raise a much more important issue with him.
  It is not only a matter of those galleries buying great emblematic works of art. The thing that makes British museums and galleries so exciting and unique is that, unlike American ones, they have a duty to collect not just the high spots of any period, but the average, sometimes even the bad. works of art which represent the context from which the great works of art arose. When one visits a gallery it is important to look at the great works in the context of their period. If the right hon. Gentleman talks to those directors, they will back what I say.
  Sir Timothy Raison indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but that is true.
  The Government's attitude has made it difficult for galleries to acquire the keynote works that they need. It has been almost impossible for them to acquire the artistic infrastructure that should surround those works so that they can be seen in the right scholarship context.
  Sir Timothy Raison: I accept that many museums are concerned with acquiring such context works, but the national gallery is in the business, quite rightly, of acquiring the very finest works. The hon. Gentleman has said that it is in the process of acquiring two incredibly beautiful works and the point is that it is acquiring them even though they cost much more than the nominal amount of Government grant available. With the aid of the national art collections fund and other means, the galleries can raise other resources to acquire the finest works. We would like them to acquire more, of course, but they do not have a bad record.
  Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree about the difficulties that those galleries face. I would be surprised if he did not agree with me that it is wrong that the Tate can buy only one picture a year. That is apart from the fact that it cannot fill any holes in its Picasso, Matisse or Henry Moore collections.
  The Tate cannot even afford works by fine living British artists like Howard Hodgkin. Such works are out of the range of the Tate's powers of acquisition. If the Tate is unable to buy the works of young British artists, as it should, its collections will be enormously deficient. That is especially significant as it is the key contemporary house of 20th century works of art in Britain.
  Mr. Renton: I noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said and it is
  1006
  interesting that, in reply, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has tried to sit on both sides of the fence on the difficult question of acquisitions and disposals. He must declare his hand.
  The Tate is primarily concerned with collecting contemporary art but it is never able to show more than from 23 to 25 per cent. of its collection at any time. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not give it the limited powers of disposal available in clause 4(4)(b)? The hon. Gentleman must declare his hand and say whether he is in favour of those disposal powers.
  Mr. Fisher: We will discuss that clause in detail in Committee. I have already said that the Opposition support the Bill. We have a bipartisan approach to it. However, we have grave reservations about clause 4 if it is left in the hands of a Government who have a long track record of being mean with acquisition money.
  The intellectual case for disposal is fine and if a Government take an intelligent view about the need to buy new pictures it poses no danger. However, this Government have frozen, deliberately, purchase grants even in the past three years when the Minister has had funds at his disposal. He has increased funds to the Arts Council, so why has he not unfrozen the acquisition grants?
  I have said several times that we will not oppose the Bill. If it does not pass through the House before the general election, the next Labour Government will pick it up and enact it. However, the difference is that the powers of disposal in clause 4 will then stem from a Labour Government who have a strong commitment to expand collections rather than to freeze acquisition funds. The Minister cannot duck the fact that, even in the years when he had some money from the Chief Secretary to dispose on our arts and cultural life, he deliberately chose not to unfreeze the purchase grants of the galleries. I am not surprised that the Minister looks away with some embarrassment. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister finds that worthy of a chuckle. If he finds it amusing that he did not unfreeze acquisition grants even in the years when he had the money to do so, he is in a bad way. The Government's record on acquiring works of art in those important national museums is nothing short of a disgrace, and the Bill does nothing to deal with the problem.
  Towards the end of his speech, the Minister slipped in a remark about the change to indemnities that the Government have introduced. In case the Minister is becoming a little hard of hearing, I repeat that we welcome that change and believe that the Minister was wrong to put that provision in the Bill in the first place. He said that he received representations from directors and trustees last week. Will he confirm that, even until early yesterday afternoon, he was saying that that part of the Bill would stand? That is certainly what I have heard. I do not know what happened later yesterday afternoon to change his mind but I am delighted that it has been changed. He may inadvertently have misrepresented the position slightly because he gave the impression that representations were made just a week or so ago and that now he had changed his mind. Representations about the problems that accrue from that matter were made to him long before last week. I do not wish to put the Minister in an embarrassing position in case he changes his mind, but I am delighted that the Government have withdrawn the provision, even

  1007
  though the Minister did not present the full picture. Nevertheless, I congratulate him on having had the courage to withdraw the provision. He was right to do so because it would be better to return to the conditions that pertain under the National Heritage Act 1980.
  Mr. Renton: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I first received representations from the directors in my box on Friday night when I returned from two days in Paris looking at the grands travaux.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Oh.
  Mr. Renton: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would appreciate that.
  As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) about what happened yesterday afternoon, I am afraid that, in his rounds of the art galleries, the hon. Gentleman listens to too much gossip that comes out of SW1 at lunch times. That is where he happens to hear the little stories that he mentioned.
  Mr. Fisher: Just as the House does not begrudge the Minister his long introductory remarks, it does not begrudge him his last trip to Paris as Minister. I hope that he enjoyed it, but I wish that he had gone earlier and had learnt from the French socialist Minister what a Government should do for the arts and how they should support it. I hope that he has learnt something from the majesty and beauty of some of those grands projets like Ieoh Pei's pyramid at the Louvre—[Interruption.] It is an extremely beautiful building. It is too late for the Minister to learn those lessons.
  Sir Timothy Raison: In endorsing French socialist policy on the arts, does the hon. Gentleman support the French socialist policy of charging for museums?
  Mr. Fisher: We do not support all the French Government's proposals. As the Minister fairly said, their museums have a different tradition. French museum curators envy us our wider access—or what was our wider access—and there is no reason why we should ape everything French. Although I have criticisms of Mr. Lang's policies, the French Government believe in the arts and the fact that Governments have a positive role to play, which is good. I am sad that the Minister has gone to Paris too late to be able to put into practice any of the lessons that he may have learnt.
  Mr. Flannery: While respecting what the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) said, let me say that we had a tradition whereby we did not pay to enter museums. That tradition was laid down clearly at the beginning of the last century. France has a different tradition. I think that our tradition is better than the French tradition. Therefore, surely the right hon. Gentleman never dreamed that we would accede to jumping over and supporting their tradition, whether it has come from a socialist Government or not.
  Mr. Fisher: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend.
  The Bill has been around for a long time and received much attention from the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Shoreham. It is extraordinary that, after such a long period of gestation, the Bill should come to the
  1008
  House imperfect so that the Minister must make a change at five minutes to midnight. He has been rather arrogant in failing to listen to the perfectly objective and non-partisan advice of trustees and directors about the term of trustees. I hope that he will consider that again in Committee and that we can return to him on that point.
  Although we support the Bill and feel that it is a useful measure, with one or two provisos that I have already mentioned, we do not support the neglect that the Government have displayed towards those museums, their purchasing grants, repairs, maintenance, salaries, the gap between their grants and their obligations, and the fact that the shadow of charging lies over all of them from their other national museum colleagues. The Government's record on the care of museums has been nothing short of a disgrace for the past 10 years. The museums world cannot wait until 9 April for a change of Government. They will then get a Government who believe in museums and who do not make the type of extraordinary remark that the Minister made when he said:
  "Museums should compete with sports grounds for scholarship and education".
  Can any Tory Member explain what the Minister meant by those words? They sum up the confusion, lack of policy and lack of clarity of the Minister's policies in the past year and of the Government's policies in the past 10 years. It is better that the Government go and we have a Government committed to improving our museums in the 1990s.
  5.27 pm
  Dr. John G. Blackburn: Although I support the Bill enthusiastically, my support is not unqualified. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister accept a warm and generous tribute on bringing the Bill to the House this afternoon? Irrespective of what has been said in the past half an hour, I believe that he has given an excellent account of his stewardship of the arts on behalf of this country.
  Furthermore, I see in the Bill the handprint of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce). I shall always have tremendous affection and admiration for his work over a long period as Minister for the Arts. Against that background, I am not prepared—in the House, the country or a general election—to take the criticism that we have heard from the Opposition.
  When we consider the Government's track record, we hear a great hallelujah from the arts world. They say that the Conservative Government and the two Ministers I have mentioned gave them a three-year programme and that they could not have gone on, year by year, living hand to mouth with no opportunity to plan and create policies. We brought into being a three-year programme and then added to it a rolling programme to ensure an overlap and continuity.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman will be happy to know that the Select Committee on the Arts fought for that policy for years. As it forms part of the public and private funding of the arts—a major import—we dealt with all those aspects. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Shoreham for his work, and I profoundly agree about the three-year period because the one-year period simply did not work.
  Dr. Blackburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think that he would also agree that we have no vested interest in the subject. I openly confess that I do

  1009
  not care whether the concept came from the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) or my right hon. Friend the Minister—I simply rejoice that it is there, and I believe that my rejoicing is echoed in the arts world.
  Public interest in the arts has grown enormously throughout the country during the past decade. Government policies—exemplified in the Bill—have resulted in increased Government funding. Let us quietly and soberly think about this "disgraceful Government" who have neglected the arts. By the same token, they have given a 30 per cent. increase in real terms in funding for the arts. I should like to see more such neglect; I want such neglect from a Conservative Government—they have increased funding by 38 per cent. in real terms, and they support the arts world. I believe that the arts constitute the life blood of society. They help to create character and enhance education. It is a blessing to have men and women with gift and talent in the arena of the arts.
  The Government have also given those in the arts greater opportunity to be masters of their own destinies. Do people object to that? We have heard time and again this afternoon that the wicked Conservative Government have no interest in the arts and are philistines. Let us consider what they have done. They have stated that funding of the arts can be encouraged from the private sector. It just so happens that my London home is adjacent to the Tate gallery, and as I pass there, morning and evening—
  Mr. Flannery: So do I.
  Dr. Blackburn: As does the hon. Gentleman.
  As I pass the Tate gallery, I unashamedly salute Barclays bank, Shell and the other companies that sponsor the arts. Instead of condemning them, we should support and salute them as they give funds, which is wonderful. The private sector contributed £500,000 12 years ago. I gently and respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend the Minister, who said that the funds now stood at more than £40 million. I believe that the figure is even higher than that.
  I support the arts, which are precious to me; I support a Government who will support the arts as this Government have, and I salute anyone who is prepared to sponsor the arts. Those simple facts are enhanced by the Minister saying in clear terms that he wants value for money. That is a good expression for us all to live with. In order to get value for money for the Government's record amount of arts funding, the Minister says that the Government will streamline them and make them efficient. He reduced the number of local arts councils from 12 to 10.I have heard of no adverse effects as a result of that modest streamlining—other hon. Members can give their own accounts.
  The arts are the greatest blessing for people, both young and old, in forming their education and scholarship, and also in creating their character. I do not believe that anyone could visit the Clore gallery, spend two hours there and come out without their lives being enriched, irrespective of their standing in society. They all have the common desire to search for knowledge, and appreciate the beauty of the arts.
  By its very nature, the Bill centres on the metropolis, which I welcome. Like everyone else, I am proud to say that we are striving to make the metropolis the centre of
  1010
  the arts world. That is why, when we make foolish criticisms, we should stop and consider that 1·5 million people go to the Tate gallery each year—there has been a modest increase of 2 per cent. in that figure in the past year. Large numbers of people also visit the national gallery and other such institutions. I am sure that other hon. Members will say amen to that and make a better contribution than I am.
  I have pledged myself as a disciple of the Bill. With my gift of prophecy I foresee that, after 9 April, the same Minister will be sitting on the same Front Bench representing the Conservative party. I want him to go on producing such measures, because the arts are alive north of Watford.
  Clause 2(1)(b) is the soul of the Bill. If I had to choose one part of the Bill I would stand by its aim of securing
  "that the works of art are exhibited to the public".
  That is what art is about—exhibiting to the public. It has been openly confessed that 75 per cent. of the works collected in the Tate, apart from those used for research and those on travelling exhibitions, remain in the bowels of the gallery, which I find offensive. I utterly agree that we should
  "secure that the works of art are exhibited to the public".
  It is no use me standing here and saying that that is what I want. I have an obligation as a Member of Parliament to support and implement that policy. At 2.30 this afternoon, I telephoned the art gallery in the town that I have the honour to represent—Dudley. I spoke to the art gallery's curator and said, "It is within my knowledge that the greatest work of art that you have in this modest little provincial art gallery is that of Joseph Mallord William Turner." To which he replied, "Yes." I asked, "When is it to be exhibited?" He said, "Monday, sir." In my humble, modest way, perhaps my phone call has ensured that a work of art is shown where people of the black country can see it, which is what it is all about. I would get just as much support for that if I were a Labour Member—my aim is to show people our wonderful gifts. We must exhibit, exhibit, exhibit—that is our role in the arts world.
  Clause 7 deals with donations. I thank God for all donators, no matter how high or humble, who donate their works, talents, gifts and products to the nation. In the middle of the last century there was a man whose father walked from Devon to London to find a job and opened a barber's shop in Covent Garden. He married the butcher's girl from next door, and as a result of that union Joseph Mallord William Turner was born. When he died in Chelsea, he left £180,000 and his desire was that the money should be given to support the young artists of this country which he loved. His second request was that all his works be given to the nation.
  Mr. Fisher: And exhibited free of charge.
  Dr. Blackburn: I am delighted that there is a common bond between us. Turner offered his life's work to the nation on condition that it be exhibited to the public free. The second condition was that the works of art should be housed as one collection. That dream was not realised until 1 April 1987, when, thanks to the generosity of the trustees of Mr. Clore, the Queen opened the Clore gallery. I have always been humbled and thrilled by that event, which represented the culmination of a wonderful life and donation to the nation.

  1011
  I want the Minister to write to me explaining the position of the Clore gallery. I want to know the general position of donations to the nation by men of talent such as the one I have described.
  This is an historic day in the life of the arts in this country. I wish the Bill godspeed. I am sure that one day, in our quiet moments, each of us who was involved in its passage will be able to say, as we pass the national gallery, the national portrait gallery, the Wallace collection or the Tate gallery, that we are glad of our stewardship in the honourable House that brought about this Bill.
  Finally, I should like to express a personal "thank you" to the Minister.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Alistair Darling: I cannot quite match the feeling with which the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) spoke, nor have I ever been moved, on pasing down the Embankment, to salute Barclays bank, British Petroleum or any other company. I have always been glad that many public companies have been willing to contribute to the arts, but I also recognise that they do so for not entirely altruistic reasons. They derive considerable kudos from such support, and there are also corporation tax advantages to be had from being generous to the arts and sport.
  I do not wish to join in the orgy of self-congratulation that appears to have broken out on the Government Benches, but I do agree with the part of the speech by the hon. Member for Dudley, West in which he drew attention to clause 2, which aims to secure that works of art are exhibited to the public. Quite so; it is precisely because of my anxiety that that may not always happen that I rise to make one or two criticisms of the Bill.
  First, however, I congratulate the Minister on having dropped clause 10, with the new section 16A(10), which would have made it more difficult for members of the public to see certain works of art exhibited in this country and abroad. That subsection would have made it less likely that works of art, particularly expensive ones that had to be insured at great cost, would be swapped temporarily or for long periods between galleries in this country and in the world at large.
  If it is our aim to ensure that the public can see works of art, anything that can be done to enable works of art to be moved around the country and around the world so that as many people as possible get to see them is desirable— so the Government opted for the best solution by dropping new section 16A(10). I wait to see what the Minister will table by way of substitution. My experience is that the Government sometimes substitute parts of Bills with provisions that are just as objectionable as the original parts that gave rise to complaint. We will wait and see.
  I want to address the House on the question of disposals, and particularly on disposals policy as it relates to the national galleries of Scotland. Of course there will be occasions when galleries will want to dispose of works of art. I am not an expert in the art world; some people would even call me a philistine—my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has often done so. I am the same as any other member of the public: I know what I like and do not like, or at least I think I do.
  1012
  I have found it difficult to join in what is known as the arts world or in the gatherings of art critics who tell us what is good and what is bad. I am certainly not in a position to say which up-and-coming artists should have their works included in an exhibition. I have always suspected that the successful ones were those who had attended the right wine and cheese parties. In any event, that is a matter for others, not for this House.
  I am worried that museums and galleries may be put in the invidious position of having to sell works of art that they want to keep in order to finance their continuing collection of new works of art. Worse still, they should not have to sell works of art to make ends meet.
  In 1985, the national gallery of Scotland was given a power that it never sought, enabling it to dispose of works of art. Some two years after the passage of legislation, one of the trustees wrote to The Times pointing out that they did not want the power and drawing attention to the fact that the Scottish Education Department had referred to the power in the 1985 legislation when considering the funding of the national galleries of Scotland.
  It seems perfectly obvious to me that, if art galleries are expected to dispose of works of art, the Government of the day will try to lean on the trustees or management of the institutions concerned to ensure that they sell works of art to fund day-to-day running costs or new acquisitions. That is thoroughly undesirable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has already mentioned the problem that the Tate gallery may face because it will have a power of disposal that the national gallery does not have. It is difficult to legislate to specify exactly when a work of art can be sold and when it cannot, but I hope that we can agree that it would be deeply regrettable if works of art were sold into private collections with the result that people could never see them again. People acquire works of art sometimes to look at them but as often as not as assets. They might just as well own gold bars in a basement or a bank—they possess a work of art that no one will see. It will be regrettable if works of art now on display pass into private ownership and remain out of sight for years or even for centuries.
  I want to refer to the problem that the national gallery of Scotland faces. The Minister said that the Bill primarily deals with the national gallery, the Tate, the national portrait gallery and the Wallace collection, bodies for which he has direct ministerial responsibility. The national gallery of Scotland falls within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not here. One might imagine that he had a great interest in national museums and art galleries, because he and his colleagues may find themselves hung in such institutions quite soon, so it would not be in their interests to put at risk their portraits or monuments by allowing them to be sold into private collections in years to come, when people have forgotten what they ever looked like. No Scottish Minister is here today, so the Minister for the Arts must answer the points that I am about to make, because the Scottish galleries are mentioned all too briefly in this Bill.
  The national gallery of Scotland faces the problem that, because it has the power to dispose of works of art, pressure will be brought to bear, as it has been already, to force it to dispose of works of art so as to fund its day-to-day activities or new acquisitions. The more serious problem is that it has already been made clear to the

  1013
  gallery that it will not receive a donation because the donor is not prepared to run the risk that his donation will go from the gallery into private hands.
  This morning, I met Sir Denis Mahon, who is well known in the arts world. He told me that he is in an invidious position. He wants to donate a 17th-century Italian work of art to the national gallery of Scotland, but he does not want to run the risk that the gallery may be forced to sell it, or that the trustees will sell it on so that it is lost to public view. That is extremely serious, because art galleries depend on donations to fulfil their functions and the national gallery of Scotland may not receive a donation because the Government have given it powers which it did not want, for which it did not ask and which are downright dangerous.
  When he responded to the point that I made in an intervention, the Minister seemed uninterested. He said first that his Department had never heard of the problem. When pressed, he conceded that the Scottish Office had mentioned it, but, happily in his view, an official had come up with the view that, because of a technicality, the matter could not be dealt with in the Bill.
  However, I should like to press it upon the Minister that this is an extremely serious matter. There is no reason why the national gallery of Scotland should be more disadvantaged than the equivalent gallery in England. If it is good enough for there to be strong controls on the national gallery in England, why should not the same controls exist for a comparable gallery in Scotland?
  I shall be complimentary to the Minister, which is more than he was to me. He knows something about Scotland. I know that, since taking up office, he has visited Scotland two or three times. Indeed, I think that he owns or leases a part of Scotland on one of the islands. He must realise that there is a thriving arts world in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland, particularly Glasgow. The hon. Member for Dudley, West is no longer with us, but he made the point that there is a strong feeling outside London that the Government and the critics who write in London newspapers do not understand that there are thriving arts communities north of the M25.
  No one can understand why the national gallery of Scotland was given powers so detrimental to its functions and so highly damaging, especially when the gallery has been faced with the problem that it will not get an important donation because of powers which it did not want but which the Government forced on it. It Follows from this that I should like the Government to table a suitable amendment to the Bill, and I am confident that one can be found, to enable the national gallery of Scotland to be on exactly the same footing—not in a more favourable one—as equivalent galleries in England.
  The Minister spoke of hybridity and this point has already been raised. The definition of a hybrid Bill is:
  "a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class".
  If the Bill can affect the private interest of four galleries in England, how can it be said to be hybrid if it were to affect the private interest of one Scottish gallery? The Minister should ask his officials to look at this matter again.
  I do not know what will happen in Committee. I hope that an amendment will be tabled. If necessary, it will have to be spoken to at great length. The Minister should not
  1014
  get off the hook by fobbing off the problem that the national gallery of Scotland faces on the basis of a dubious legal technicality.
  That speaks volumes for the lack of interest and inactivity of the Scottish Office, which has not been prepared to advocate this cause with enthusiasm. The Scottish Office was alerted to the problem some months ago, but obviously it has done nothing about it. No Minister from the Scottish Office has turned up today. This Minister is clearly not briefed on the subject. This matter, like many others, could be adequately dealt with in a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
  Those in the Minister's Department did not know about the problem, so it was not a problem, because it was out of sight of the galleries that they see in London and with which they are terribly familiar. They should remember that there are art galleries outside London which should be catered for.
  I hope the Minister will consider this point when the matter comes to Committee, or it will have to be pressed again and again. I do not know whether this was inadvertent, but I am sure that it was due to lack of interest and incompetence. I assure the Minister that it is deeply resented, and it is harmful to the interests of the national gallery of Scotland. It is in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom that we should have galleries in London and Scotland to collect and maintain works of art that the public can see, and that is not happening.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is deeply unjust. I answered his points completely and quickly and told him that the matter was under consideration by the Secretary of State for Scotland and does not come directly to me. As I understand it, the problem is one of hybridity, and the hon. Gentleman should know this and give credence to it. The other Scottish national institutions—the national library and the national museum—have not found any problems with the disposal powers given to them under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991. I have a full brief on this matter, and I know that the director of the national gallery of Scotland has recently raised it.
  The hon. Gentleman described his conversation this morning with Sir Denis Mahon, and the possible bequest by Sir Denis to the national gallery of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman claimed that Sir Denis might not make that bequest if the disposal powers of the national gallery of Scotland were not changed to those that we are giving to the national galleries affected by the Bill. Why does not the gift of Sir Denis Mahon go to the national gallery of Scotland under a strict trust, binding in law on the trustees, that does not permit the picture to be sold? Why not follow that route?
  Mr. Darling: The Minister might just as well apply the logic of that argument to the national gallery in London. If it is good enough for Edinburgh, it is good enough for London. I think that Sir Denis would find it unreasonable that, as a donor, he should be cautioned before doing anything else, and certainly before parting with a work of art, to go to a trust lawyer, no doubt an expensive one, to draw up the so-called trust. That is unreasonable.
  The Minister did not say that the Secretary of State for Scotland was considering the matter. If the Secretary of State is considering it, I would welcome that, but the Minister rather gave the impression that the matter had been considered and then dismissed, because of the

  1015
  hybridity argument. We shall wait to see what will happen in Committee, but, having had some dealings with the Minister in his previous job but one, I am not particularly optimistic.
  The Minister also mentioned the national library of Scotland—perhaps I should declare an interest as a trustee of the library—which has slightly different problems. Now that the national gallery of Scotland may not be getting a bequest that it had previously been offered, we should be on our guard and deal with such problems.
  The Minister's use of such a poor argument is unimpressive. Judging by his demeanour, I am not optimistic, but we can return to the matter in Committee, where it will no doubt be pursued. I just hope that the Minister accepts that there is genuine concern. A small amendment would solve the problem. If the only argument is hybridity, and if that argument could be overcome, a suitable amendment, perhaps framed by the Minister's draftsman, would be welcomed.
  There is a general welcome for the Bill. I cannot comment on that because I do not profess any knowledge of the majority of it. For the sake of completeness, and as the Minister was trumpeting his achievements and rather belittling those of local authorities, I should make this point. Next time he comes to Scotland—I feel that it will be under his own steam—perhaps he will look around Edinburgh. In addition to the national gallery and the national portrait gallery, the Edinburgh district council has done a tremendous job in building the local arts in Edinburgh. We were the first in Britain to get the Chinese exhibition "The Emperor's Warriors", although one would not have known it from reading the arts critics based here in London. We had "Pharaoh's Gold" and many other exhibitions. That is a splendid example of what a local authority can do in partnership with a public gallery and private money. I hope that the Minister will not belittle that. It ill becomes the Government to belittle the efforts being made by local authorities.
  I end where I started. If clause 2 is to have some meaning and the public are to have access to the arts, the Minister should think again, particularly with regard to the problem faced by the national gallery of Scotland to which I have drawn his attention.
  5.59 pm
  Sir Richard Luce: I strongly welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on its introduction. It is his achievement, not mine. For a long time I wanted such a Bill to be introduced and it is my right hon. Friend's achievement to have produced it in a form that deserves the support of the House. I am glad that the Opposition intend to support the Bill.
  After 20 months it is nice to have another glimpse of the familiar debates on arts matters in the House. Nothing much has changed. The Government continue to display a fine record and to build up that record to make our achievement over the past 12 years even finer. The Opposition continue to lash around, looking back to the past in a rather neolithic fashion, being rather disparaging about patrons and going on about charges when they
  1016
  know perfectly well, as my right hon Friend says, that that is a matter of choice for the trustees of the individual museums; looking back in anger.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is fascinated by the arts world and he knows a lot about it, but he does himself and the Labour party a disservice when he launches into an attack on areas of Government policy on the arts where our achievement is remarkable. For example, we have been working jointly with the private and public sectors in building up the great success story of our museums and galleries. The hon. Gentleman fairly said that he would like to examine the Government's policies, for which I had a heavy responsibility, on, for example, the freezing of purchase grants for institutions on which I followed the policy of my predecessor, as has my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly legitimate to examine such a matter, and before I conclude I shall suggest the right way forward for the 1990s, but the hon. Gentleman does himself and his party a great disservice when he attacks the Government in areas where there has clearly been a remarkable achievement.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not here. He is a familiar part and pattern of our debates on the arts, but he intervened earlier when he referred to the natural history museum. He and I have had many an exchange on that subject and on many others. A great compliment was paid me when a journalist on The Guardian, writing a piece which was intended to attack me bitterly on my policies on the arts, came to the conclusion in the last paragraph that
  "The best way to deal with Mr. Luce as Minister for the Arts is to have him stuffed and placed in the Natural History museum."
  I cannot think of a nicer compliment. Long after the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central has disappeared from the parliamentary scene and has been forgotten, in 200 years' time my great great grandchildren will go to the natural history museum and pay a good charge to contribute to improvements to that museum to see their ancestor who was once Minister for the Arts. I am proud of my association with the natural history museum.
  I support the concept behind the Bill and the work that my right hon. Friend has been doing. He has already struck a real chord in the arts world. He is clearly a man who knows about, understands, and has a great feeling and love for the arts. That has come across clearly. He is now, brick by brick, constructing further the Government's policy to help the arts to achieve even greater things. I congratulate him on that and I look forward to congratulating him in three and a half years' time on breaking my record of five years in office. I hope that he has a long time in the job.
  The Bill refers particularly to the four great national galleries and confirms the policy of encouraging a diversity of funding for those institutions. That principle is singularly important. That is why I was critical of so many Opposition Members for being so disparaging about patrons such as the Sainsbury family who have done wonderful things for our arts.
  Firmly embedded in the Bill is the principle that we should be able to manage our museums in a businesslike fashion; that they should be able to diversify their money so that they are not completely dependent on the Government, although the grant in aid is important; that they should be able to charge if they wish, but if not, that is fair enough and that they should make good use of the

  1017
  commercial activities that can be based in such institutions, whether cafes or shops, and to encourage sponsorship.
  Mr. Fisher: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes on to his next point, I am sure that he would not wish to misrepresent the Opposition's case. At no point in my remarks, today or previously, have I disparaged patrons. Indeed, I join the Minister in paying tribute to people such as the Sainsbury brothers for their generosity to the national gallery and to Mr. Clore and his daughter, Mrs. Vivien Duffield, for the Clore gallery. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I made no criticism of the generosity of such people. The nation owes them a great debt.
  Sir Richard Luce: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened and made clear his position. I was referring to some of the sedentary remarks during the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister when he was referring to the patrons. I am delighted that he has given such robust support to our patrons of the arts.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the record of refurbishment in the institutions, and that record is remarkable. It has been achieved by joint funding from the public and private sectors. The Sainsbury wing is a remarkable achievement and there is the new Berggruen collection, the refurbishment of the national portrait gallery, the new Tate gallery in Liverpool and all the great efforts that are being made to extend the accessibility of paintings to other parts of the country. My right hon. Friend has contributed to the extension of the St. Ives school of painting and the Tate gallery in the north. I am also glad that he mentioned Lord Wilson and the plan to invest about £20 million for the improvement of our museums and galleries. All that is good and remarkable progress in the right direction.
  The way in which my right hon. Friend has dealt with the question of disposals is right. I took the view that after a period of consultation with the institutions one should seek to tailor the policy of disposals to the interests, history and traditions of a particular institution. The Wallace collection is of its own kind; there are no acquisitions or disposals. The national gallery has another set of proposals and the Tate gallery another. That is the way to deal with the problem.
  If we are not to adopt a policy of radical disposals, a policy of great freedom, the mobility and accessibility of our works of art is vital. The provisions in the Bill to improve indemnity and to encourage the transfer of objects to other institutions are an important contribution. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could say something more when he replies about the Government's encouragement of more touring and exhibiting of works of art.
  I reached the conclusion some time ago that, regardless of the complexion of the Government, there is never adequate money for acquisitions, getting the fabric of our great national institution in an ideal state, and saving important works of art. The demands and pressures from Departments concerned with education, health, and other sectors are such that those three objectives cannot ever be wholly met by the taxpayers. I agree therefore with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that the best way forward in the 1990s is the introduction of a
  1018
  national lottery. The sooner that the Government commit themselves to one, the better it will be for the arts, sport and other interests.
  A national lottery must never be seen as a substitute for public expenditure on the arts, but as a way of adding formidably to available resources.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as a distinguished holder of the office of Minister for the Arts and I agree that sponsorship money must continue to be available. There would be so much demand for the resources available from a national lottery that I am not sure how much would be used for the purposes that the right hon. Gentleman and I have in mind. There is no real alternative to public funding.
  Sir Richard Luce: Let us be clear. The Government have a remarkably good record on arts funding and there is no doubt that their commitment to maintaining support through taxpayers' money remains. However, we seek greater diversity of resources, which would strengthen the arts still further. I do not see a national lottery as a substitute for public expenditure, but as a way of substantially supplementing overall available resources in areas that one would not expect the taxpayer wholly to finance.
  I am glad to support the Bill and all the remarkable work done by the Minister. I may add, in what is probably my last contribution—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—in the House, at least on the arts, that anyone who has enjoyed the privilege of serving as Minister for the Arts cannot but help form a great affection for all those who work in them. They do a wonderful job for the millions more people who seek to enjoy the arts today than did 20 years or 30 years ago. The Bill will play a modest part in that process.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I mean no discourtesy, but I will have to leave the Chamber after my brief contribution, because I have a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and that is important business.
  The right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) did a good job as Minister for the Arts, despite the constraints imposed on him by the lunatic policies of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). It is touching that he wants to end up as an exhibit, like Jeremy Bentham —stuffed and put on display in the natural history museum. I am not sure that I would pay money to see him, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman realises we would like him to go now—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and undergo that process of taxidermy. I may add that we on this side of the House intend at the general election to stuff the whole Conservative party.
  We have no ideological hang-up about private sponsorship of the arts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) has often said, we are quite prepared to accept additional resources from that quarter. However, as the right hon. Member for Shoreham said, they must be truly additional, and not be used to replace core funding.
  Areas such as my own—and we have the Theatre Royal in Stratford—find it difficult to secure business sponsorship. We have some, and we are most grateful for the money that we receive from the London electricity board and the London Docklands development corporation.

  1019
  However, the total sum is not very great. Thanks to Government policies, the recession has not left much of an industrial base to which an appeal for additional funds can be made. It is not easy trying to raise supplementary resources.
  The Minister quoted a figure for business sponsorship ranging from £500,000 to £40 million. While that is welcome news, one would like more evidence and detail to be certain that that is not simply a guesstimate by the Minister's officials.
  Mr. Renton: That estimate was not mine, but that of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. I am sure that it will give the hon. Gentleman full details, if he requests them.
  Mr. Banks: I am not altogether satisfied from the way those figures are collated that they present an entirely accurate picture. I will let that pass, but we need to know that money is available, and that it is not simply a figure that the Government assume—on the basis of a random selection of statistics from ABSA—is available as top-up, not replacement, money.
  The right hon. Member for Shoreham was probably alluding to my few remarks about the Sainsbury boys, to whom I referred as fat cats. They are—and they can certainly afford to give the support that they do. There is no such thing as a free lunch, either for the Sainsburys or for the arts, galleries, and museums—and not even for the right hon. Member for Shoreham. The money in question had to come from somewhere.
  I was only suggesting that all the people who buy their baked beans or whatever at Sainsbury are making a contribution to the arts through the checkout tills. We are grateful for those resources, but we must remember that there are also tax breaks for those who put money into the arts privately, so we should not fall to our knees and fawn at the feet of those who have an awful lot of money at their disposal.
  It is a good idea to allow galleries and museums to rationalise their collections from time to time, where there is an overlap. However, I am anxious that items for disposal should go to other public institutions, rather than to private collections. Perhaps we can draw out more detail on that aspect in Committee. Even an item that is in a reserve public collection and has been hidden away in a basement ought not to be sold to a private collection.
  Concern might be felt also by those who intend to bequeath items to public museums and art galleries, on the understanding that they will be kept in the public domain. That is true also of land and other property of the kind mentioned in the Bill. If such a bequest has attached to it a codicil stating that it should not be disposed of to a private collection, the museum or gallery must decide whether it will accept the gift on those terms.
  It would be cruel if people left their collection of cheese labels to a public institution, only to find after they have gone to the great museum in the sky, on looking down from their lofty heights, that their cheese labels were to be sold at Sotheby's or Christie's.
  A plaque outside the Horniman states that it was bequeathed to the people of London as a free museum. If
  1020
  admission charges are imposed, that would clearly go against the good intentions of the individual who made the original bequest.
  I would like to ask the Minister directly whether, if the Bill goes through, as one assumes that it will because we on the Opposition Benches will give it a fair wind, it will, for example, allow the British museum to lend to the new Acropolis museum in Athens the Elgin or Parthenon marbles. That is an interesting concept, because they would be on public display. The new Acropolis museum has been designed specifically to entice back the Parthenon marbles.
  I am delighted that the leader of my party has said that that is what will happen, because it would be an act of great solidarity with our Greek friends. Many of us take holidays in Greece and we love the Greek people dearly. They would value and treasure far more their own national heritage, which we have got locked up in the British museum, than we do. We could have a polystyrene imitation of the marbles. I do not suppose that many people would notice the difference. In the meantime, those beautiful marbles could be restored to their rightful place in the wonderful city of Athens. Will this Bill assist such a transfer?
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Member may recall what I told his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). If the hon. Member wishes to leave his collection of cheese labels to the Geffrye museum, under clause 4 it is not at all difficult for him to do so with a trust or condition prohibiting or restricting disposal of the cheese labels. In the case of the Tate gallery, for example, the Bill specifically allows people making gifts to put conditions on them to prevent their being disposed of; in such circumstances, the trustees would be unable to dispose of them.
  Mr. Banks: I want to know that my collection of cheese labels will be safeguarded for posterity and not, after the years that I have spent accumulating them, peeling them off little triangles of processed cheese, ending up at Christie's and being distributed to private buyers round the world; so I am delighted by that assurance. We are making some progress here.
  Clause 3(4) lists the objects of the national portrait gallery, which include the commissioning of "portraits of eminent British persons". I would like to record the fact that I commissioned from Feliks Topolski a wonderful painting of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I took it round in a taxi to the national portrait gallery and the snooty buggers refused it. Here I was, doing my best for the arts, and they refused it. It is a fine example of Topolski's work, and I hope that this little plug for it tonight will induce the trustees to accept a fine painting, not only by a fine artist but of a fine subject as well.
  I turn to the matter of museum charges. The Minister really must understand this, because he did not understand it in the course of the various interventions when he was speaking. We on the Opposition Benches do not oppose charging for special exhibitions; that has gone on for many years and will continue under a Labour Government. But it seemed to us wrong to change the ethos, the philosophy, of our museums, which is free access for general admission, as opposed to special exhibitions.

  1021
  If the trustees are given adequate resources, there is no way that they would voluntarily impose a charging regime. That must be a fact, because so many people who run museums and art galleries have said so, both to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central.
  Charging is a bad move. It is no good saying that there has been no fall-off. There was an enormous fall-off in attendance immediately following the imposition of charges by museums. We cannot know who is not going, but we have to look round to see who is now unlikely to go. Many schools are no longer visiting museums, and many people who cannot afford even a modest admission charge will not go.
  A charge is a disincentive. Museums and art galleries are a wonderful heritage. They were established by many far-sighted people to act as a source of inspiration and education for ordinary people. A charging regime deters those people from visiting. It is wrong, and I am glad to hear that those on our Front Bench, when in government, will make sure that no museum has to impose charges for general admission, even though we make exceptions for special exhibitions.
  Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to make a few comments. I will finish because I can see the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) straining at the leash, but I apologise for having to go off and see his colleague.
  6.24 pm
  Sir Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), like all the Opposition Members who have spoken, is strongly opposed to charges for general admission to museums. At the same time he, like those other Opposition Members, is in favour of greatly increased expenditure on museums and particularly on the acquisition of new works of art. Given the enthusiasm of the Labour party for taxation and its opposition to charges, perhaps we might get round this particular problem if museums were allowed to impose a small tax on visitors; the ideological opposition to charges might be dissolved by this semantic device.
  The debate so far has been enriched by the contributions of two distinguished Ministers for the Arts, the present incumbent and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce). One of their greatest contributions has been the encouragement of private sponsorship for the national collections which has gone up from £500,000 to more than £40 million. This is to be enormously welcomed.
  I also very much welcome the contribution made by the Sainsbury family. I recently visited their new wing. I salute the contribution that has been made by the Clore family and I have recently visited the Turner gallery. But I do not believe that we can expect private munificence on this great scale to continue in the future. At the same time, however, there are exciting possibilities just ahead for the expansion of both the national gallery and, in particular, the Tate.
  A few weeks ago the Secretary of State for the Environment called for suggestions on the future of Somerset house, once the civil servants begin to withdraw from that great building. In the public mind Somerset house has been associated for many decades with personal records. Perhaps it would be appropriate if the national portrait gallery were to occupy part of it in the future.
  1022
  The Sainsbury wing opened with an exhibition of the royal collection of paintings. The Queen's gallery at Buckingham palace has been a great success. The state apartments in Windsor castle are magnificent. Yet much of the royal collection is still not adequately housed and accessible to the public. It might be appropriate in the future if, under the auspices of the national gallery, part of the royal collection was on display in Somerset house.
  My main concern is with the future of the Tate and, in particular, of the RAMC site which adjoins it on Millbank. Every time that I have driven past the site over the past decade, I have felt surprised that the Ministry of Defence continues to occupy it. I cannot believe that the RAMC, or indeed the Ministry as a whole, will continue to do so for the rest of the century. What will become of the site? Will yet another office block be built there? I feel that it has enormously exciting implications for the future of national collections and artistic life in the capital.
  Yesterday, I received a letter from the director of the Tate gallery. The director wrote:
  "The trustees of the Tate Gallery are still developing a strategy for their building plans. This is not a simple task as any new framework will determine the shape of the gallery well into the twenty-first century. They hope to complete an outline strategy by the autumn of 1992. However, it is already apparent … that they wish to renew the emphasis on the role of the Tate as the national gallery of British art, as well as of modern art … that this will require the permanent display of the nation's existing large holdings of several British artists and not just of Turner alone … that such displays might be devoted to Hogarth, Gainsborough, Reynolds, Blake, Constable, the pre-Raphaelites, Watts, Spencer, Moore, Nash, Sutherland, Nicholson, Hepworth, Bacon, Hockney, etc. … that such displays will require a significant addition to the present building … and that the natural location for this additional space would be across Atterbury street on the present RAMC site."
  The director of the Tate went on to say:
  "It would therefore make good sense for the Government to make a commitment to offer the first option on the RAMC site to the trustees of the Tate, when the site becomes available. An early commitment would allow the trustees to develop a plan which makes best use of available resources." I agree. I believe that the Government should make the Millbank site available to the Tate for development when the RAMC moves out of its splendid headquarters and mess: it could provide accommodation for a number of artistic and heritage organisations that are currently scattered around the country. What we do not need is just another office block. I am afraid, however, that if and when the site is handed over to the land salesmen in the Ministry of Defence, a great opportunity will be lost for ever.
  We do not know when the RAMC will leave Millbank, but we do know that the Ministry of Defence will be selling substantial quantities of land in London in the not-too-distant future. I hope that the Office of Arts and Libraries will keep in touch with the MOD in regard to the cultural and heritage importance of a number of sites; the MOD's land administrators do not have a notable record when it comes to imaginative use of sites for heritage purposes.
  I agree with those who have said that the core of the Bill is contained in clause 4. Opposition Members have expressed doubts about the limited flexibility that is being given to the trustees of the Tate and the national portrait gallery to make disposals from their collections in certain very restricted circumstances. I consider that the clause is drawn too narrowly: I should like the powers of trustees to dispose of certain works to be widened somewhat.

  1023
  According to some of this morning's newspapers, a great Holbein portrait is to be sold at Christie's on 15 April, along with a fine Canaletto and an equally fine Rembrandt. The pictures have been in historic houses for centuries—or, at least, for decades—but, as we know, pictures in such houses are coming on to the market in great quantities because of the current financial pressures: estate duty, taxes, inflation and falling farm incomes.
  Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in expressing some disquiet about the fact that the owner of the pictures that he mentioned did not see fit even to discuss with any of the major galleries—the national gallery, for instance—the possibility of a private treaty sale? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it will be very sad if that becomes the norm? So far, what has distinguished the responsible behaviour of the great private owners from the behaviour of others is the fact that, when they have needed to dispose of works of art, they have first tried to negotiate a sale with national galleries. I hope that this unhappy precedent will not be followed.
  Sir Philip Goodhart: I entirely agree. The practice of trying to negotiate with the great national galleries is wholly desirable. I do not know whether the owners of the three paintings that I mentioned have followed that procedure—I have seen no statement from them—but we are clearly faced with a continuing problem in regard to the availability of works which would be an important addition to the national collections. Even with the most generous financial provision and the most successful national lottery, there will still be financial shortfalls.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was slightly critical of the new arrangements whereby the national gallery acquired two great pictures on the basis of instalment payments. It strikes me as quite sensible to adopt flexible financial arrangements for the acquisition of new pictures.
  In the case of disposal, too, there is room for increased flexibility. I should like to see in clause 4 a provision enabling the national gallery, the Tate and the national portrait gallery to lease some of their pictures. Leasehold is an accepted practice in the property market, and I do not see why it should not become, to a certain extent, a practice in the art world as well. The Getty museum has enormous purchasing power. Why should not some of the national gallery's pictures that are not of prime importance and some of the Tate pictures that are not, and cannot be, on display be leased for a period of five, 10 or even 25 years to people who are anxious to acquire them? That could bring some new money in and allow the national gallery and the Tate to increase their powers of acquisition.
  In a letter to The Independent, published today, the Minister, referring to the whole question of acquisition by the national collections and the export of works of art, says:
  "My prime concern … is to see that important treasures from our heritage, passed on in the past from one generation to another, remain as far as possible in this country for the educational enjoyment of the millions of Britons who visit museums, galleries and historic houses."
  1024
  That is a very laudable objective, which we should all support, but I do not believe that the rigidity of clause 4 will help the Minister to achieve it.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: It is a pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), who has contributed a number of original ideas on the subject of acquisition.
  Clause 4 is a modest but worthwhile step in the right direction. The whole point of a work of art is that it should be enjoyed and perceived. It is utterly useless when locked up and stashed away in a cellar. A large proportion of the great museums to which the Bill refers keep a considerable number of their works of art below ground, or otherwise hidden from view, because there is no room to display them. Museums aim to increase their stock of works of art almost as an end in itself. That is wrong. We should move towards a situation in which it is considered quite normal for a museum either to lease works of art, as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, or even, in certain circumstances, to sell works for the purpose of financing other acquisitions.
  I take the point that people making bequests want those things to remain in the museums, but it is open to those people to make such a stipulation in, say, a solicitor's letter or by some other means. In the case of some past acquisitions, those considerations do not necessarily apply and I do not see anything intrinsically wrong with a vastly overstocked museum selling 50 unwanted items to enable it to make one valuable and enormously desirable acquisition—something that it and its visitors would cherish and would very much want to see on display. I would rather have a work of art in a private house, where comparatively few people would see it, than have it locked away in the dark under a museum, where no one would see it.
  I hope that we shall be able to move further in the direction indicated by clause 4 and that finance for acquisitions will be provided through a national lottery. This idea should have the support of the whole House. It certainly has the support of the vast majority of the members of my party. I was very pleased by the Minister's response to my intervention concerning the support that this concept has received from his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce), and many other Conservative Members. A national lottery could produce large sums of money for museum buildings. It would create additional money, and certainly ought not to detract from what is already provided. We should have three sources of public support for the arts: support through existing grants, which, with the very impressive record of the Government, has increased by 30 per cent. in real terms; support resulting from the enormous growth in business sponsorship, which has been wholly beneficial and ought not to be disparaged in any way; and support in the future, I hope, through a national lottery.
  The Government's record in the arts is absolutely first class, and I believe that the country will support it in the next few weeks.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Fisher: This being a Bill which has general support from all corners of the House, we have had a wide-ranging and stimulating debate. In the context of a very sharp

  1025
  disagreement about the value of the Government's policy, there has been a surprising—refreshing, some might say —degree of cross-party support for a number of key points. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) agree with us about the question of charging. The hon. Member for Beckenham's detailed knowledge of the Turner bequest enlightened everybody and demonstrated that his daily visits to the Tate have been put to very good use indeed.
  There is total cross-party regret at the fact that the right hon. Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) may have made his last House of Commons speech on the arts. Members on both sides have paid him very deserved compliments for his parliamentary defence of the arts. He paid a very generous, but very correct, tribute to the people in the arts world —the administrators, the artists, the designers and the writers—who bring such distinction to this country and such enrichment to our communities and ourselves. I expect that our tribute will be echoed by those people, who know that during the right hon. Gentleman's five years they had a Minister who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, struggled valiantly against the then Prime Minister's hostility. He deflected much of the pain from the arts world. Few holders of his office will be remembered with so much affection in that world, even if the people in it did not always agree with the right hon. Gentleman's judgment and his ability to dispense money. There was cross-party support for his remarks tonight.
  There is also cross-party support for the fact that the Minister has dropped the indemnity clause. In this regard, however, there are still some areas of disagreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) said, it will be very important to see what replaces that clause. Let us hope that the Minister will avoid the need for another withdrawal. This time he should consult closely the galleries and museums concerned, and he should do so quickly, as hon. Members wish to proceed to the Committee stage and will want a reasonable period to consider the Government's suggested replacement. If the Minister has to balance the two, I hope that he will consult widely and carefully so that this time he gets it right.
  There was also disagreement, to which we shall return in Committee, about gifts. In his very well argued and well-researched speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central laid particular emphasis on the contribution that people such as Sir Denis Mahon have made to the arts world and their enormous generosity as benefactors. My hon. Friend rightly fears that that generosity could be inhibited. The Minister should reconsider his advice. He thinks that the answer to the problem is for potential benefactors to consult their lawyer and enter into trust deeds to protect their gifts.
  If the Minister had stopped for a moment to consider the implications of his remarks, he would have realised that what he was saying to them was, "In order to protect yourself against this Act of Parliament, you should take legal advice and enter into expensive legal trust deeds." It is nonsense for the Minister to recommend people to take legal advice to protect themselves against possible future eventualities. However, we shall return in Committee to the question of gifts. I hope that by then the Minister will also have had a chance to think again about the time that people should serve as trustees.
  1026
  The Minister knows that when the Bill is considered in Committee he will have to explain what exactly is the difference, in his view, between the national gallery, which he believes should not have powers of disposal, and the Tate gallery and the national portrait gallery. The Minister has had an easy ride today, but he knows that he faces a difficult job in Committee. He has given in to very persuasive advocacy by one gallery but not to the pleas that were made on behalf of the others. He has not treated them in an even-handed way. He may, however, explain that in his closing remarks.
  In general, there is widespread support for these measures. We welcome them, as well as the right hon. Gentleman's role in their birth. He was very modest about his own contribution and paid tribute to the previous Minister for getting the Bill on the Floor of the House. The House knows, however, that we owe something to him for it. Although there is cross-party support for the Bill, the wider picture will continue to be fiercely argued and disputed on the Opposition side. I believe that we speak for most of the museums world and arts world. The Government's record over the last 12 years is a disgrace. [Interruption.] We need not argue about it any longer. The public will decide in a few weeks. I believe that they will agree with the Opposition that, although the Bill is a useful measure, the most useful thing that this Government could do would be to go and to leave the arts to a Government who care about them and are prepared to make a commitment to them.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Renton: It is a pleasant change for me to be able to agree for once with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) in the generous tribute that he paid to my very distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce). My right hon. Friend has been my neighbour in West Sussex for many years and he is a personal friend. One of the great pleasures of taking on the arts job was to know that I was continuing down a path where he had set a very clear and fine record. I have always appreciated his advice and wisdom.
  If this is to be the last occasion on which my right hon. Friend speaks on an arts subject in the House of Commons, all of us will be pleased that his connection with the arts is to continue, both as president of the Compass theatre—that well-known and successful touring company—and as president of the voluntary arts network. It will be a great pleasure to us all, therefore, that in one guise or another we shall continue to be reminded by my right hon. Friend of the proper way to do things in the arts world. I am glad that he has been here today. He was the progenitor of the Bill. I am pleased that at last we have found legislative time for it. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central for his help today on Second Reading. I am sure that he will continue to support the Bill in Committee.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham referred to the encouragement of travelling exhibitions. I can assure him that we continue to encourage the national museums and galleries to ensure that their holdings are as widely seen as possible throughout Britain. That is being encouraged in a number of ways, most particularly at outstations, as they are called—for example, the Tate of the north in Liverpool and, in future, the Tate of the west

  1027
  in St. Ives. The Tate of the north in Liverpool is holding a major exhibition of the paintings of Lucian Freud, many of which come from the Tate's own collection.
  We also encourage the national museums and galleries to make major contributions to exhibitions in other local museums and galleries. The most recent example is the exhibition of design from the 1950s at Manchester, which I had the opportunity to see, many of the items for which were lent by the V and A. Above all, help is channelled all the time through the Museums and Galleries Commission and the area museums councils. As long as I have this ministerial job, I am determined to continue to encourage increased access to central national collections by means of exhibitions in local museums and galleries.
  All of us will have been moved by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) and by the eloquence with which he spoke of the beauty and importance of the arts. The curator of Dudley art gallery will be amazed and delighted to find that my hon. Friend's telephone call to him today and the fact that he is to exhibit a Turner in his gallery next Monday has been commented on in the House of Commons this afternoon and that for ever it will find a place in Hansard. As he spoke, I was reminded of Turner's own words. His customary remark, following the sale of one of his paintings, was, "I've lost one of my children this week." I feel that that is a remark with which my hon. Friend can very much associate himself. Only yesterday evening I was at the Tate looking at the exhibition of Turner's works, "The Fourth Decade", in the Clore gallery, thanks very much to the sponsorship of Agfa. The exhibition contains some very delightful and interesting watercolours. I know that the members of the Clore family, particularly Sir Charles Clore's extremely generous daughter, Vivien Duffield, will have been very pleased to hear my hon. Friend's remarks about the Clore gallery.
  As to the extremely interesting comments of another very old friend of mine, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), I thank him for his support for flexibility in both the disposal and acquisition arrangements. I agree with him. I suspect that we shall have to look at this question very carefully over the years. I was interested in what he said about clause 4 and the advantages of leasing. There are difficulties about leasing. It is labour intensive. It requires additional staff. That would need to be funded and the leasing arrangements would have to be closely monitored. I suspect that it would be better to look in more detail at the concept of outstations, to which I referred in my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham.
  As to my hon. Friend's point about the RAMC site, I am aware of his close interest in the site and of his correspondence with Mr. Nicholas Serota. I understand that there are no immediate plans to dispose of that site, but my office is in touch with the Ministry of Defence about a possible use for the site, should disposal of it ever be considered.
  The interest in the arts of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is well known to hon. Members. He is probably the best pianist in the House. He has been a strong and good chairman of our Back-Bench committee for some time. I was pleased to receive his support for clause 4, the key clause. I know that he
  1028
  supports a national lottery as a potentially very useful source of money for the arts, in particular for the funding of capital projects. I see that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is pointing to his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). I have nothing to add to what I have already said to him. I have made my position absolutely clear. If he wishes to raise the matter in Committee he will be able to do so.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central emphasised that the office of trustee should be held for seven years, not five. I regard that as very much a Committee point. I think that five years is about right. It works for both sides and it is not out of the way for someone who has served for five years to be reappointed for another five years. It is not a point of great substance, but we can return to it in Committee.
  I have greater difficulty on the issue of purchase grants. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central knows the arts world well enough to know that purchase is by no means the only way in which our great national galleries have been acquiring pictures in recent years. They have been helped by personal gifts and by the national heritage memorial fund, for which we have recently increased the funds available from £3 million to £12 million. They are helped by objects of art that come to them through acceptance in lieu. Since 1980, the national gallery, the Tate gallery and the national portrait gallery have acquired, through acceptance in lieu—it has nothing to do with their purchase grant—pictures with a market value of nearly £24 million. The price paid was just under £12 million.
  Any gallery director would like his purchase grant to be increased. He would be crazy if he did not. It is his job to say that he would like more money from the Government, the local authority or the sponsor. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central knows that there are many other routes that the great galleries and museums have successfully used in recent years in order to acquire pictures, sculptures and other works of art.
  As my hon. Friends have stressed throughout this short but interesting debate, our record of funding the arts has been enormously positive, not just our funding for the Arts Council, but in the very much larger sums of money that we are making available—for example, for the building and refurbishment projects in the national museums and galleries. We are making available £196 million over the next three years, more than £;60 million a year. That is much larger than the figure five or six years ago. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central should give us credit for that, but he finds it difficult to accept that there is any good in the extremely positive record of the Conservative Government. What are his alternatives? By and large, the Labour party would kill off the sponsorship goose, which is increasingly laying a larger and larger golden egg. That would be £40 million gone. The Labour party's policy on charging would make museums poorer and would interfere in their activities. That would be another £40 million gone. We have a fine arts record. By contrast, the Labour party has a purely destructive and negative record without any new ideas.
  This is probably the last aria of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central before the final curtain falls. I remind him of the beautiful but sad words from "Macbeth":

  1029

  "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

  That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

  And then is heard no more".

  As he struts no more, the hon. Gentleman can take comfort from the fact that a new dinosaur gallery is opening in the natural history museum in April. I have no doubt that he will find himself one of the earliest acquisitions in that gallery.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES BILL [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Museums and Galleries Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required by a Minister of the Crown for making payments under or by virtue of the Act;

  (b) any administrative expenses of a Minister of the Crown which are attributable to the Act; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other enactment out of money so provided.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  Social Security Administration Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.3 pm
  The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is the first of six Bills relating to social security that are before the House this evening. They all relate to the consolidation of statutes relating to the state system of social security, so I shall, with permission, speak to all six together.
  These Bills between them represent the first consolidation of all the United Kingdom statute law on social security. The first three relate to Great Britain. The other three contain corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland.
  The Social Security Administration Bill is concerned, as its name implies, with the administration of the social security system. It deals with matters such as the payments of benefits, adjudication, enforcement and uprating.
  The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Bill deals with the contributions on which certain social security benefits depend, and also with the various benefits themselves. It covers a wide range of benefits from unemployment and sickness to child benefit and the Christmas bonus to pensioners.
  The Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Bill contains repeals and consequential and transitional provisions arising out of the other two Bills.
  As I have said, the other three Bills relate to Northern Ireland and have the same purpose as their Great Britain counterparts. They are the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Social Security (Consequential Provision) (Northern Ireland) Bill.
  In preparing the three Great Britain Bills, the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have, in accordance with normal practice, issued a report on the consolidation in which they make a number of recommendations for minor amendments that are necessary in order to produce a satisfactory consolidation. For the Northern Ireland Bills, the Lord Chancellor laid before Parliament in November last year a memorandum containing a number of corrections and minor amendments that were needed in order to facilitate the consolidation. That was in accordance with the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949.
  All six Bills were referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills during their passage in another place. The Joint Committee has since reported, on 11 December 1991, its approval of the minor amendments and corrections referred to in the report of the Law Commissions and in the Lord Chancellor's memorandum.
  I believe that the House will wish to join me in congratulating the respective Law Commissions and draftsmen, here and in Northern Ireland, on their prodigious industry in bringing this project to fruition. The work involved has been enormous, and will be greatly appreciated by those who have regular recourse to this area of the statute book, especially those who advise clients about their right to claim benefits.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: I start where the Attorney-General finished, by congratulating the Law Commissions and the parliamentary drafstmen on their work on this and the other Bills in the series. I shall also speak to all six Bills together, as I hope that it will shorten our proceedings.
  The legislation is important, but a glance at one of the Bills will show that it is also complex and technical. However, it is law that is mainly for laymen, not lawyers. Consolidation means that those who need to look for this branch of law need search in only one jungle instead of several, as they have to do now. Therefore, as always, I welcome consolidation.
  Welcome for the Bill and support for the measure, which is being prepared under the aegis of the Law Commission, do not excuse the Government's lamentable and pathetic record on implementing the work of the Law Commission. The Attorney-General spoke of the enormous use of resources in bringing together a vast number of statutes into six related consolidation measures. I wonder whether that acts to the detriment of other law reform.
  We have a report from the Law Commission on the table. However, since 1984, only 11 of 33 reports have been implemented. Of 12 reports in 1988 and 1989, only two have been implemented. There is a whole series of law reports, which I would not be allowed to refer to in detail, but which includes measures on international fraud, corroboration of evidence, the wholly unjust liability of original lessees, a Bill to facilitate the use of the Welsh language in conveyancing and the rights of widows on intestacy, on which nothing has been done.
  Although the Government have drafted this Bill, their record on the other law reforms that flow from the work of the Law Commission has been a disgrace. Our praise for this Bill should not obscure our condemnation of what we regard as the Government's slothful and neglectful reaction to most of the work of the Law Commission.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I also welcome the consolidation because the flow of legislation—primary and subordinate—from this Government in particular and from previous Governments in general has been massive, as the Attorney-General knows. I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on delegated legislation, which frequently asks the Department for consolidation of subordinate legislation, so it is pleasing that primary legislation has been subjected to the same process.
  I want to deal especially with the measures which affect England, Wales and Scotland. Consolidation is especially important because there is an intricate web for applicants. We should never forget that it is difficult for applicants to find their way through the social security network to get the payments which are necessary for people in a very poor and often vulnerable position.
  The consolidation will not provide an easy guide but it will help to provide a helpful, consolidated and largely single source of help and guidance for those who become expert in it in the advice centres which are available to many people. We hope that the consolidation will be used to provide an authoritative guide, and I hope for two things.
  1032
  First, as the legislation will be used by many people who in turn give help and advice to perhaps hundreds or thousands of people who visit advice centres, the price must be kept as low as possible. The price has rocketed under this Government, to the point at which it is prohibitive even for some public institutions. This is not the Attorney-General's responsibility, but I urge him to recommend to the Department of Social Security that it keeps the price within a practicable limit to help organisations.
  Secondly, it might be helpful if copies were available at each social security office. It is true that many people would not be able to fathom the legislation because it is complex, but it would be helpful if a reference copy were available to those who were interested. As we make the legislation, and as this consolidation has been designed to remove the difficulties of examining disparate documents by, in this instance, putting them into three Acts of Parliament, surely we should encourage people to read the Acts and to use them as sources.
  To do that, we must make them available, but unfortunately, for the most part, copies of legislation or Acts of Parliament are too expensive for the ordinary person to obtain. Of course, they are too expensive for the applicant for social security to obtain.
  Many local authorities are now so short of money that, whereas at one time they might have bought these reference documents as a matter of course, they are seeking documents that they can drop from their list and, in the case of a reference library, this legislation might be one of those documents. That is a misfortune and the Government should at least try to assist people in the provision of this information.
  Having made those qualified remarks, I always welcome consolidation. If we send out a great deal of confused and patchy legislation, that is a failure on our part which makes it hardly surprising that citizens fail to comprehend it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Boswell].
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell].
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Boswell].
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Boswell].
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Local Government Finance (Wales)
  7.22 pm
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move,
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–93 (Revised) (House of Commons Paper No. 247), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved.
  I understand that it will be convenient for us also to discuss the next two motions:
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 4) (House of Commons Paper No. 241), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved.
  That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (House of Commons Paper No. 153), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
  The reports before the House contain my decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1992–93. Since my statement to the House on 13 January the Government have announced that they are recommending acceptance of the teachers review body report on pay and providing additional resources to help local education authorities meet the cost of the pay award. Last summer, in considering the local authority settlement for 1992–93, the likely pay bill for teachers was one of the matters that I took into account. In the event, the pay settlement, which will add 7·8 per cent. to the pay bill of education authorities, was somewhat higher than I had allowed for. I have therefore provided an additional £3·5 million in revenue support grant to bridge the gap. I believe that this underlines our commitment to ensuring that the dedication and achievements of our teachers are properly rewarded.
  The additional resources are included in the revised revenue support grant and distribution reports before the House tonight. The original RSG and distribution reports, which were laid on 20 January, have been withdrawn.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Hunt: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and then to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths).
  Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry to intervene so early, but the Secretary of State has gone straight into the question of funding the pay award. Is there any truth in the rumour that he intends to redistribute the grant in part from the district authorities to the county authorities, in order to cover some of the costs of the settlement?
  Mr. Hunt: The reports are all clearly before the House. I have no proposals to change the figures in them.
  Mr. Rowlands: I asked a specific question.
  Mr. Hunt: No, there is no truth in the rumour. I said no. The figures are set out in the reports, and they are clearly before the House tonight.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Calculations were made for the education budget for the coming financial year when the original document was laid before the House last summer, and the Secretary of State is now talking about an underestimate. Will he tell the House how much local

  1035
  education authorities will have to draw from their own resources to cover the extra amount that will not be covered by the additional grant that the right hon. Gentleman has announced?
  Mr. Hunt: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we cannot hypothecate the standard spending assessment. As part of local authorities, local education authorities receive an overall SSA. For Welsh counties the SSA increased on average by 8·1 per cent. That is well ahead of inflation, and —given the scope for efficiency savings over the range of services that counties provide—it represents a substantial sum. However, I realise that the recommended award is higher than I had expected, and I have therefore provided additional money to take account of that.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I touched upon the matter that I am about to raise earlier today, in the Welsh Grand Committee, but there was no chance to follow it up. My local county council, Gwynedd, told me today that the 7·5 per cent. increase will not only affect teachers' salaries, but will have a knock-on effect on several salary bands and expenses. There will be a shortfall of £500,000 in the budget, even after allowing for the proportion of the £3₷5 million that will come to Gwynedd. If that is the case, can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, if it is necessary to increase the poll tax in order to raise that money, Gwynedd will not be capped for doing so—regrettable though the increase may be?
  Mr. Hunt: The amount allowed for Gwynedd in the standard spending assessment settlement is increased by £9·5 million—6 per cent. That is a reasonable increase, bearing in mind all the demands. Gwynedd will also receive a share of the additional money that I have provided. The hon. Gentleman asked about capping—I should like to return to that subject in a few moments.
  There should be no need to resort to unjustified cuts in numbers of teachers or in any other elements of the education service—or to increase community charges. I believe that all the points that have been raised have been allowed for in the settlement I announced.
  It might be helpful if I summarised the main features of the settlement. Total standard spending for 1992–93 is £2,608 million—that is equivalent to £1,195 per charge payer in Wales. That is an increase of 8·7 per cent. over the comparable TSS figure for 1991-92 and it is well over one percentage point more than the equivalent increase for English local authorities. The aggregate external finance, which now encompasses the community charge grant, for 1992–93 now stands at £2,352 million. If one takes the equivalent figure for 1991-92, it represents an increase of 6·9 per cent. That means that charge payers should expect to contribute less than 10 per cent. to the cost of local government services in Wales.
  I am making available £40 million under the community charge reduction scheme. If one also takes into account the community charge benefit, the contribution from Welsh charge payers will fall to around 7 per cent. That means that 93 per cent. of the cost of local government services will be provided from central Government resources.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
  Mr. Hunt: I shall give way after I have finished this point about the key figure. If authorities spend in line with TSS, it will mean an average community charge payment in Wales of about £85.
  Mr. Morgan: I am absolutely astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's words. He said 93 per cent. of the costs will be met from central Government resources. He seems to assume that the uniform business rate, having been collected from local industry and dispatched to central Government, becomes the gift of central Government to give back to the local authorities. Those authorities used to collect it separately anyway. Surely he realises that that money is not equivalent to a Government grant, but represents local business taxes.
  Mr. Hunt: As a result of legislation passed in the House, the non-domestic business rate is redistributed nationally by the Government. The Government do not have some special money that they produce at the Royal Mint. The Government are always redistributing resources whether they come from income tax, value added tax, the uniform business rate or whatever. I do not see the point of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  Let me break down the figures. Within the aggregate external finance package, the revenue support grant total for 1992–93 is £1,621 million. The total allocated for revenue specific grants is £195 million and the distributable amount from the non-domestic rating account is £536 million. The Welsh non-domestic rate poundage for 1992–93 will increase by more than 4 per cent. to 42·5.
  The distribution report before the House sets out the calculations for each authority's standard spending assessment. Those have been recalculated to take account of the increase in resources for teachers' pay. However, to achieve consistency, it has also been necessary for me to take account of other data changes. They include a number of credit approvals for capital spending which affect the loan charges element of individual authorities' SSAs. All the changes have been handled in accordance with the distribution formulae agreed with the local authority associations. The overall average increase in SSAs for the coming financial year is more than 8 per cent. after making allowance for the higher education institutions that are to leave the local authority sector on 1 April 1992. The average increase for counties is 8·1 per cent. and for districts 8·7 per cent.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State now appears to count it as a virtue that 93 per cent. of local authority expenditure will be met from central Government and 7 per cent. only from the local poll tax. Is my memory correct, because I recall that, when the Secretary of State and his colleagues were trying to sell the poll tax, one of its chief virtues was meant to be the accountability of local government to its local poll tax payers? In the light of the 7 per cent. contribution from those people, where does the accountability argument now stand?
  Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman thought about it, he would understand that the figures sharpen accountability —[Interruption.] Of course they do. The hon. Gentleman's inference is much more serious because I have been searching for some considerable time for a suggestion from the Opposition as to whether they would maintain Wales's grant advantage. The hon. Member for

  1037
  Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that he felt that about the right amount to be raised from local taxation was 20 per cent.
  Mr. Anderson: What about accountability?
  Mr. Hunt: I am not talking about accountability at the moment; I am talking about the real bill for Welsh people.
  In Committee today I tried to allow the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to intervene so that I could obtain that information. He did not do so, so we still have the question about what would happen to the Welsh grant advantage. If we had the tragedy of a Labour Government returned to office and if they allowed for local people to raise 20 per cent. of the contribution towards local expenditure, local bills for local people in Wales would treble. That is why the Opposition owe us an answer on that crucial point. I hope that we will hear it tonight.
  I am firmly of the view that the levels of increase will enable local authorities to maintain and develop services without placing an unreasonable burden on charge payers. They are significantly in excess of inflation and, based on conclusions reached by the Audit Commission, I believe that there are also substantial efficiency savings available to local authorities. As I told the House on 13 January, I plan to meet the Welsh local authority associations shortly to discuss their future plans for efficiency initiatives. They have achieved much already, but I think that they would acknowledge that there is still much that can be accomplished.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The right hon. Gentleman said that SSA settlements were in excess of inflation, but the SSA for Powys is just 6·2 per cent. even when allowance is made for the teachers' salary increases. Why is it that the mathematical analysis that has produced that SSA discriminates against the charge payers of Powys, who have set their poll tax at £100, right on the right hon. Gentleman's target?
  Mr. Hunt: I am always concerned for the hon. Gentleman when he produces wrong figures, so may I put the record straight?
  In Powys the SSA rises from £87·670 million to £93·187 million. That is an increase of £5³517 million, which is equivalent to a 6·3 per cent. addition. Compared with the 1991–92 budget in Powys, that SSA is 8 per cent. higher. It is the highest increase on last year's budgets of any of the counties in Wales.
  If one assesses that SSA per head—I realise that I may be causing dissension elsewhere in the House—which county of all the Welsh counties receives the largest SSA per head? The answer is Powys. It receives £1,019 per head.
  Mr. Livsey: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Powys is by far the most sparsely populated county in Wales. What has happened now is that the relativity between Powys and the other county councils has reduced.
  Mr. Hunt: Let me give the hon. Gentleman the exact figures. I do not want this to turn into a debate about Powys, but it is important for the people of Powys to know the facts. Aggregate external finance in Powys will rise from £70 million to £84 million. Therefore, the external finance towards a budget of £93 million will be £84 million. Working out the increase in SSA per head, one sees that Powys receives the largest increase over 1991–92 for the
  1038
  year 1992–93. The increase in Powys is larger than in any other county in Wales and amounts to £70 per head. Therefore, I hope that we have heard the last of that, but if there is any dispute over the figures the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) will no doubt come back to me.
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate what might happen to community charge payers in Powys if the Liberal Democrats' policy were implemented? The paper "Shaping Tomorrow's Local Democracy" says that the Liberal Democrats propose a cut in revenue support from central Government. It says:
  "as soon as practicable the proportion of the total tax revenue which is raised at local, as opposed to national, level … must be very substantially increased".
  Mr. Hunt: I should be delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor has to say about that because it would be bad news for Powys if the Liberals got anywhere near control. They have already said that local councils should raise far more of the money that they spend. They want increased accountability but they would increase the bill of people in Powys.
  Taking into account the proposed increases for 1992–93, the average increase in Welsh districts' SSAs for 1991–92 and 1992–93 taken together is more than 30 per cent. That is an increase in SSA over only two years. The average increase for Welsh counties, after making allowance for the changes in higher education, is 24 per cent. over two years. Those are significant increases and they confound any argument that the Government are not committed to the adequate resourcing of local government in Wales.
  I am aware of complaints that the standard spending assessments system does not properly reflect the needs of individual authorities and gives rise to volatile changes in individual authorities' SSAs year on year. The methodology for determining SSAs for 1992–93 has, as in years past, been agreed with the associations through the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance. It is time-consuming and often contentious work and I pay tribute to the associations for their efforts in achieving fully agreed conclusions.
  The starting point for those discussions is that change should be limited to what is essential. I am in full agreement with the local authority associations that stability should be preserved unless there is a good reason for change. An important change to the district authority formulae for 1992–93, which the Council of Welsh Districts considered essential, has been the reduction in the distributive effect of the composite social indicator to 4 per cent. of the overall current SSA for district authorities. The composite social indicator—CSI—was included in the formulae for the 1990–91 settlement at the request of the CWD, with the intention of redistributing funds to those district authorities that suffer relative social deprivation. The CWD now considers that the CSI mechanism over-compensates those authorities, and so the Welsh Consultative Council agreed to the CWD's request for a change in 1992–93. I hope that that explains the background to the system.
  SSAs should also reflect the changing circumstances of individual authorities. To that end, the distribution model uses financial and non-financial data supplied by local authorities. That includes population changes and the

  1039
  level of individual authorities' borrowing that affect loan charges. For those reasons and others, the position of local authorities relative to one another inevitably changes year on year.
  I believe that the SSA arrangements are sound and that there are good reasons for the changes which affect individual authorities' SSAs.
  Mr. Morgan: Some Opposition Members are not quite as bright as the Secretary of State. At least, we are not quite as well briefed on the intricacies of how those measurements are arrived at. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and probably leaders of the local authorities and their officers would like to eliminate much of the unnecessary quarrelling over the exact definitions of the allowance to be made for inflation. Has the Secretary of State managed to agree with the local authorities, or even just with their treasurers, what the proper rate of increase should be in the coming year for what could be called a "service standstill" budget? That would take into account all the extra costs that local authorities face, because it is a much more labour-intensive service than the average basket of goods. The retail prices index of inflation is irrelevant. What is the rate of increase that local authorities and the Minister's specialists agree is required to maintain services at the same level next year?
  Mr. Hunt: That is precisely what is discussed at the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance. In all my experience as a Minister responsible for local government finance in England, I never knew a local authority publicly to say, "Thank you very much, we do not want any more". I remember a Labour Minister telling local authorities that the party was over. There has always been a conflict between central Government and local government about the appropriate level of spending, but in Wales we have a particularly effective mechanism. We sit round a table and argue the points through, which is the function of the Welsh Consultative Council for Local Government Finance. I pay tribute to the local government officials and leaders—[Interruption.] We do not agree a figure. I put what I believe to be the appropriate level of spending in the TSS —
  Mr. Morgan: Is that a bank or a building society?
  Mr. Hunt: It is neither a bank nor a building society. It means total standard spending and is the sum total of all the standard spending assessments in Wales. That is the key figure, which I believe has been increased appropriately.
  I hope soon to submit for the approval of the House, a special grant report setting out arrangements for the payment of an additional £6 million that I am providing to fund 75 per cent. of the estimated revenue cost of council tax implementation. It would be inappropriate for the report to be laid before Parliament until it has given its consent to the Local Government Finance Bill. Standard spending assessments under the settlement for 1992–93 do, however, make provision for the 25 per cent. of that expected expenditure, which is not met and will not be covered by the special grant.
  I announced on 13 January that I shall provide £40 million under the community charge reduction scheme for 1992–93. In deciding on the appropriate level of funding
  1040
  for the coming year, I have taken account of both the significant reduction in community charge levels that has been achieved through community charge grant for 1991–92, and the increased level of revenue support grant that I am providing for 1992–93. About 56 per cent. of charge payers in 500 communities will continue to receive community charge relief. The amount that I am committing to the scheme is double that provided in 1990–91, when the community charge for standard spending was £55 higher than the level that I consider appropriate for 1992–93.
  Provided that local authorities spend in line with my plans, the personal community charge that they set should not exceed, on average, £118. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may be only just beginning to understand what I am saying. The important issue is the increase in TSS, which is the appropriate increase in all the circumstances. That £118 is less than half the equivalent figure for English authorities and £ less than the average charge of £121 set by Welsh authorities for 1991–92. Relief under the community charge reduction scheme for the coming year should reduce the average community charge in Wales to £100. When account is taken of community charge benefit, the average charge falls further to about £85.
  Mr. Anderson: The Secretary of State will recall that the Prime Minister called the poll tax "uncollectable". On what assumptions is the Secretary of State working in respect of the proportion of the total sum capable of being collected by Welsh authorities, given that there is ever greater public resistance to it? Perhaps "resistance" is the wrong word, but it is more difficult for local authorities to collect that tax. Is the assumed figure—94 per cent.—more or less.
  Mr. Hunt: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, as I have the latest figures, which show that community charge collection in Wales is going well. Returns up to and including the third quarter of 1991–92 show that a total of 70 per cent. of the budgeted income for the year had been collected by 31 December. That includes four authorities that have collected 85 per cent. or more of their budgeted income—Dinefwr, Preseli, Ogwr and Brecknock. I hope that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) appreciates that that is the quickest response that he has received to any question that he has asked in the House. Authorities expect to collect 100 per cent. of the budgeted total for 1990–91, and they are on course to achieve the same level of collection in 1991–92.
  The hon. Gentleman asked for the exact figures for the full amount as against the budgeted amount. The latest figures for the end of the third quarter of 1991–to 31 December 1991—show that 69·8 per cent. of the budgeted amount and 65·5 per cent. of the full amount has been collected. That is a remarkably good record when compared with anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Anderson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get a chance to make his own contribution.
  I wish to pay tribute to staff, councillors and everyone working in local authorities in Wales who have achieved such a remarkably good result.
  Some Members opposite have been telling people not to pay the community charge—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?") I

  1041
  cannot see any in the Chamber. There are no such Members in the Chamber, but there have been Members on Opposition Benches—
  Mr. Ray Powell: The Secretary of State said "opposite".
  Mr. Hunt: I said that there had been Members on Opposition Benches — I chose my words carefully— who have advocated the non-payment of poll tax or community charge. I can identify more than 30 Labour Members who told the people of the United Kingdom not to pay their poll tax or community charge.
  I wish to say a few words about non-payment. There will be no amnesty for non-payers. We are taking further steps to ensure that authorities have the necessary powers for the proper enforcement of the community charge. We have extended from two to six years the period during which enforcement proceedings may be commenced. We are moving to put beyond doubt the admissibility of computer evidence in proceedings for community charge recovery in magistrates courts. My Department has written to local authorities about how to proceed in the short period before the Local Government Finance Bill is enacted.
  We believe there is no obstacle to authorities continuing to apply for liability orders where they consider that their procedures for the presentation of cases meet the requirements of existing law. I understand that authorities are continuing to apply and that more than 6,000 liability orders were made by Welsh magistrates in the last two weeks of January.
  The settlement before the House today is a good one for local government and charge payers alike.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Hunt: I shall not give way yet as I wish to address the point on capping raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
  As the House knows, I have not announced charge capping criteria for 1992–93, but I will scrutinise carefully the budget of any authority which exceeds its SSA. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to use my charge-capping powers. In recent years, Welsh authorities have, on the whole, performed better than their English counterparts in setting prudent budgets. They have benefited from more generous settlements than their English counterparts in recognition of this, and it has not been necessary to charge cap a single Welsh local authority. That is a record which I want to continue, but I have become increasingly concerned during the past few days and weeks by reports I have seen in newspapers, which I hope are untrue, which suggest that a number of authorities are considering setting budgets that would place an unacceptable burden on charge payers. Those authorities should be in no doubt that I shall use my charge-capping powers if I consider it necessary. In view of those reports, I have today asked my officials to set up a special unit in the Welsh Office to make the necessary arrangements for capping. I hope any authorities that are contemplating diverging from my plans in setting budgets will think again and that I will not have to activate the capping procedures now in hand.
  Dr. Kim Howells: It sounds as though the Secretary of State is setting up a special investigative division. I hope
  1042
  that it will have a better effect on Wales than did the introduction of the poll tax. Local authorities are not abstract notions—their members are elected by respectable, good people in Welsh communities who, through no fault of their own and because they cannot afford to pay the poll tax, have been dragged before the courts and criminalised. They are people who have never previously been in court. The Government are responsible for that and for bringing untold heartache and hardship to households. They should be thoroughly ashamed of that.
  Mr. Hunt: I am not ashamed of that. We are talking about civil offences; it is wrong for people to seek to benefit from services while not paying for them. There is no question of people not being able to afford the poll tax or community charge, as the amount provided through the income support system more than covers the 20 per cent. they have to pay, due to the low community charge in Wales.
  I believe that the settlement for 1992–93 provides Welsh local authorities with a realistic framework within which to maintain and develop service provision. 1 hope that they will respond to that challenge and will act in a responsible manner and not undo their past achievements. I commend the settlement to the House.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: How obviously Her Majesty's Government have sought to shunt this debate into the small hours. They tried to do so twice and, after nearly three weeks, we are now able to have a debate at a reasonable hour. We know that the Government have sought to hide this debate because they know that the poll tax is most unpopular in Wales. Tonight, the Secretary of State has presented the orders, revised, at only the last minute. That does not increase our confidence in the Government.
  The poll tax continues under the Conservatives. They rejected Labour's offer of a poll tax abolition Bill. If our offer had been taken up last summer, another round of poll tax chaos would have been averted. Now, poll tax panic is once again breaking out in the Conservative ranks. The Government will have to fight the general election campaign against a background of renewed controversy over the cost, fairness and practicality of the poll tax. Whether the general election is on 9 April or 7 May, the Conservatives face the spectre of the electorate in Wales picking up their poll tax bills in one hand and Conservative election leaflets in the other.
  The Government, who have already wasted more than £100 million on the poll tax in Wales, may yet add confusion to chaos. Will the Secretary of State now rule out any political gerrymandering to delay poll tax bills going out in Wales until after the general election?
  The poll tax nightmare continues. Council treasurers are having to try to administer the discredited poll tax which even the Prime Minister described as uncollectable. They also have to collect growing poll tax debts and adjust their budgets to meet standard spending assessments under the threat of poll tax capping. The chaos, confusion and uncertainty among treasurers increase by the day.
  Our councils in Wales are being asked to engage in the biggest debt collection exercise in the history of Wales. More than 400,000 summonses for poll tax arrears have been issued by magistrates courts in Wales. Even some of

  1043
  the poorest people in Wales still have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax. Ministers are threatening poll tax capping and, by implication, more cuts in local services.
  This wretched record is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and soon he will have to face the electorate and account for his actions. Conservative Members representing Welsh constituencies—fairly thin on the ground they are too—do not support the right hon. Gentleman's views on the poll tax. They do not believe that it should be inflicted on the people of Wales, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that. But the blame for the chaos lies with him.
  The Secretary of State's central role in introducing the poll tax in England and Wales is well known. It is worth reminding the House once again of some of the gems of political wit, insight and intelligence uttered by the right hon. Gentleman in the past. He told the Conservative party conference in 1989:
  "The fact is that, whatever Labour claim or do, the community charge is on course for successful introduction throughout England and Wales."
  The right hon. Gentleman recently said:
  "I welcome the community charge system to which I was committed at the last election and to which I remain committed as a much fairer and better system."
  So why should we believe anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said tonight? Why should we ever believe him again?
  Mr. David Hunt: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman will put it to the electorate at the next election that we should return to the rating system. When he was Under-Secretary of State for Wales —
  Mr. Rowlands: That is going back a bit.
  Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is going back a bit too. He said then:
  "I will go further and call attention to the many anomalies inherent in the rating system."
  The hon. Gentleman was against the rating system then, so why is he so much in favour of going back to it now?
  Mr. Jones: That was a frivolous intervention, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
  The Under-Secretary has been no shrinking violet on the poll tax either. The people of Pembroke, reeling under the hon. Gentleman's indifference to the workers of Trecwn and Brawdy, will, I am sure, remember that he said in this House quite recently:
  "The community charge is a fair tax and a reasonable charge to make on people, so we should support it."—[Official Report, 23 May 1989; Vol. 153, c. 911.]
  Why should the people of Pembroke ever believe him again? We think that this is another nail in his parliamentary coffin.
  Mr. Anderson: In the light of that crushing indictment of these two Ministers' record on the poll tax, does my hon. Friend agree that the least the people of Wales can expect from them is some contrition?
  Mr. Jones: I am quite prepared to give way to either of them if he wants to apologise for the poll tax. Clearly, there is no contrition tonight.
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was unconvincing on teachers' pay, particularly when answering questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member
  1044
  for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). I understand that the total cost of the teachers' award in Wales will be £49 million. Welsh Office Ministers have claimed that the extra £3·5 million will help to cover the cost of the award, but the counties are left to find the balance of ;£45·5 million, on top—Ministers did not make this clear—of the built-in additional costs in 1992–93 of funding the 1991 teachers' award, which will cost an extra £14 million—because the 1991 award was phased in and part of it became effective only from December 1991. So the total extra cost to be found by the counties for teachers' pay in the coming year is £63 million, made up of 7·8 per cent. from the 1992 award, and an extra 2·8 per cent. from 1991.
  The Secretary of State did not refer to the difficulties that the award will create. Whatever the merits of the teachers' award—we know that the teachers need the money—it is clear that the Government expect the counties of Wales to find ways of meeting exceptional increased costs within a settlement that we know is inadequate for local services as a whole—there is certainly a large hole in the settlement in respect of teachers' pay. On top of all that we have to contend with the right hon. Gentleman's bully-boy tactics of threatening capping.
  The blame for next year's bills also lies with the right hon. Gentleman. The local authority associations in Wales consistently advised him that the settlement could be improved. Our spending needs continue to increase. The settlement is inadequate to meet the extra costs flowing from increasing statutory responsibilities. The counties face increasing costs related to the implementation of Government legislation on the national curriculum, on pupil assessment, on community care, and of the Children Act 1989, to say nothing of funding the teachers' pay award.
  For districts, the costs of implementing environmental protection legislation and waste disposal legislation are considerable. The right hon. Gentleman did not make his case when discussing the difficulties faced by local authorities.
  The Government have no excuses left for the 20 per cent. poll tax contribution rule—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: No, not now.
  The 20 per cent. rule has been condemned by every independent and professional body. It is to be removed under the council tax, yet the Government insist on keeping it while the poll tax remains. The rule is a disaster and a disgrace, and it is making the poll tax even more difficult to collect. It punishes the poor and it has created debt and hardship. In his passionate intervention earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke the truth.
  These orders relate to housing and the Government have created a housing crisis. With over 70,000 people on waiting lists in Wales, homelessness at record levels and mortgage repossessions soaring, it is time for action by the Government, but they have cut the supply of affordable homes to rent. Capital allocations mean that few, if any, council houses will be built next year. In 1975, under the Labour Government, there were 8,294 council house

  1045
  starts. In 1990, the figure was down to just 350. Little wonder that homelessness has doubled in Wales since 1979.
  These orders also refer to the attempts by local authorities to generate employment, something that they do very well in Wales. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity finally to come out in support of RECHAR and additionality, which is of such great importance to the south Wales coalfield? It is about time that he chose between party and country and I ask him to stand up and fight for Wales.
  This issue threatens to spread beyond the £18 million for the south Wales coalfield. Lack of progress on the additionality issue could threaten European grants and aid worth £18 million to Wales. The blame lies clearly with Her Majesty's Government. This dispute could not be happening at a worse time. Unemployment in Wales increased by 35 per cent. in the last 12 months, yet the Government are blocking millions of pounds for positive local authority initiatives to strengthen the economy, create employment and improve skills. In south Wales alone, not only RECHAR money worth £18 million but over £40 million in regional development funds are at risk. The projects at risk include phase 3 of Cardiff (Wales) Airport business park, the Tawe valley development project in west Glamorgan, the Crumlin navigation regeneration project in Gwent and the valleys innovation centre at Abercynon in Mid-Glamorgan.
  This is the record that I honestly believe will put Welsh Ministers at risk when the general election comes. The record of Her Majesty's Government is poor and I was not surprised to see recently an article about the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), the Under-Secretary. The West Wales Guardian published an article on its front page headed, "Nick's Seat At Risk". It said:
  "Although … the major parties are running neck and neck nationally the regional patterns are not uniform and the swing in Wales forecasts that the Pembroke seat held by Welsh Office Minister Mr. Nicholas Bennett is marginal and will fall to Labour."
  This detailed analysis comes not from an impartial newspaper, but from one that favours the Conservatives. I am surprised to see that it is prepared to print the truth and predict that the excellent Labour candidate, Nick Ainger, will win the seat by 2,400 votes.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
  Mr. Jones: I can see that this is enraging the Under-Secretary, but I warn him that though he may come to the Box, he does so at his own peril.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On the day that that report was published, the Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph—the one on which that newspaper relies—showed a 4·5 per cent. Conservative lead, which gives me a majority of 3,000.
  Mr. Jones: If that is so, why does the West Wales Guardian refer to the Gallup poll?
  I listened in vain for the Secretary of State's apology to the people of Wales for brazenly and blithely inflicting on them an unjust, unpopular and wasteful poll tax, although there was no support in Wales for it. It took a right hon. Gentleman representing the English constituency in Wirral to do that, and he is identified closely with it. The blame for the poll tax lies with the Conservative Government. The Conservatives know it and the people of
  1046
  Wales know it. We know that Conservatives have undermined local government. They have eroded local services and wasted millions of pounds. Time is up for the Government. It is time for a fresh start. It is time for a Labour Government.
  8.15 pm
  Sir. Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) can be sure that an anthology of his wit and wisdom is being lovingly compiled and will be extensively used during the next general election, although it would be more effective to play back some of his speeches. I am thinking not of the relatively sotto voce speech that he made tonight, but of the speech that he made a little while ago in the Welsh Grand Committee, which I shall treasure for a long time.
  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a fair and generous settlement. I remind him of what has been said about the Prime Minister—that he endeared himself to the previous Prime Minister because, she said, he said no so charmingly. My right hon. Friend says yes so charmingly that even his threepenny bits look like gold sovereigns. I am particularly pleased that, as a result of this and previous settlements, the adventure playground in Rhyl, which has such an important part to play in raising the morale of that rather depressed end of the town, will go ahead.
  Members of Parliament, by definition, are never satisfied. We always want more, and I have to record my intense unhappiness that Clwyd county council has for so very long delayed action on Ruthin bypass. Now, in the restriction in the transport supplementary grant, it has been able to find a pretext further to delay the starting of that essential scheme. There are always schemes that we want. I am thinking in particular of the arts centre at Llandudno, on which I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has worked so tirelessly behind the scenes. Local government looks to central Government for support for such projects.
  I have a pet scheme of my own—the pier at Colwyn bay, one of the few remaining piers in north Wales, which will shortly fall into the sea unless something is done about it. I was delighted when, the other day, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside visited it and promised that a Labour Government would find the money to put it right. On this, as on everything else, the hon. Gentleman goes around pledging the moon. The trouble is that the moon has already been pledged, latterly in the shape of revenue support grants. These have been generous, because they had to bring the poll tax down to the low level at which it stands in Wales. Welsh Members are particularly pleased that we have managed to drive English Members of Parliament out of the Chamber, because that means that they will not know what a wonderful deal we are getting.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I am English.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am blind in my left eye.
  I agree with the fears of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about what all this is doing for local autonomy. As my right hon. Friend said, 93 per cent. of all the moneys spent by local authorities no longer comes

  1047
  from any source for which they are responsible for voting. On top of that, there is the threat of community charge capping.
  What does all that mean for local autonomy? I do not think that the public care much. For example, they support the transfer to central funding of the police and fire services. They are pleased to see that higher education is now the Government's responsibility. I think that the majority would like to see responsibility for teachers' pay transferred to the Government. Many would like to see education so transferred. They support, and I support, the concept of ring fencing for certain items of local government expenditure. My good friend the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) is not present, but he and I both feel strongly that, if the interests of the more vulnerable sections of our community are to be protected, it may well be necessary to consider ring-fencing the moneys allocated for community care. All that is fine, but where is it leading us?
  I recently attended a local government conference in Rouen in France, when I asked my French neighbour how much of the money that his local authority was spending was raised by taxes which were locally decided and voted. He said that it was between 80 and 85 per cent. That is in France, which it is the conventional wisdom among all of us to consider to be a highly centralised country.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems in Wales—it may well be true in the rest of Britain—is the great disparity between levels of living standards and incomes? Areas in close proximity may have vastly different per capita and net household incomes. Therefore, with relatively small local authorities, there is a need, at the very least, for significant equalisation if levels of services are to be common throughout those areas. Perhaps that difference does not exist quite so much in areas of continental Europe.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The disparity can be every bit as great in France. One travels around spanking new towns and sees slummy bidonvilles on the outskirts with exactly the same problems, which are often more widespread and acute than ours. France has no fewer than five levels of government which it seems to put up with. I am not recommending that we should.
  I wonder what on earth is happening. There was a steady move towards reducing the contribution made by the Government to local government, and by 1985–86 it was some 47 per cent. That has now risen to 93 per cent. That is almost entirely the consequence of the unacceptability of the poll tax and the need to sugar the pill, but the effect on local autonomy has been catastrophic. I should like to think that that effect was completely unintended, but I must take into account the destruction of all the countervailing centres of authority. I rejoice in the diminution of the power of the trade unions to challenge elected Governments. However, I observe with less rejoicing the attempts to restrict the activities of some voluntary bodies to stop them entering upon political activity.
  All that is splendid, but we are going towards a highly centralised system of government. If ever that system were to fall into the hands of a party holding extreme views, we
  1048
  would be in a terrible plight. I am not sure whether that is not the most lingering legacy of the Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher); a more lingering legacy even than what I currently consider to be her greatest achievement, which is the modernisation of the Labour party. There are moments when one feels that the only effective check on the powers of central government is the power of the multinationals, plus the influence and power still exerted by the EC.
  Against that rather unpromising background, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to reorganise local government. He will not make the same mistake as his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), of separating the reform of local government from the reform of local government finance. Basically, that is the mistake that Gorbachev made when he tried to carry out political reform without economic reform.
  That is why devolution in Wales deserved to fail last time. It was a scheme to set up an elected assembly which would have had the pleasant task of distributing money but none of the responsibility for raising it. Any viable scheme for devolution must include an assembly with revenue-raising powers. I notice that many of those who advocate devolution fall quiet when one talks about that aspect, but it should be faced. However we do it, it will be diabolically difficult to get back to genuine local autonomy.
  What locally elected councillor will cheerfully vote for steeply increased locally raised taxes? I just do not know the mechanism whereby we can return to genuinely independent local authorities. If I knew the answer to that, I would be even more of a wizard than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All I know is that the Opposition do not even have the courage to pose the question.
  Several Hon. Membersrose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. It might be helpful to inform hon. Members that, if they were to speak for less than 10 minutes each, it might be possible to call all those who wish to speak. As usual, the debate is in the hands of the House.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I shall try hard, Madam Deputy Speaker, to obey your plea by dealing briefly with the one bit of the settlement that I understand. One good reason for not becoming Secretary of State for Wales is that one avoids becoming embroiled in the gobbledegook of the rate support grant with its formula S - N - (P x C), where C is the community charge for capital spending, quite apart from the total standard spending and the rest. There is a strong case for avoiding that.
  But there is one part of the system that I have tried to understand and have watched closely, and that is the community charge or poll tax reduction scheme. We were told that, starting in 1991, a sum of money would be specifically directed to reducing poll tax payments in certain districts. It was not even a borough or district-wide scheme. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, it was applied at ward level. We reached the absurdity where one side of the street in one ward benefited from the scheme, while the

  1049
  other side in another ward did not. However, at least one understood it. Money was being specifically allocated to reduce the poll tax to certain householders in the community according to a variety of formulae.
  But a couple of months ago in the House the Secretary of State made a statement on the revenue support grant for 1992–93. We all listened and nodded wisely. On the community charge reduction scheme, he said that he intended to make £40 million available in 1992–93. He went on to say that that would provide substantial assistance to charge payers who most needed relief, and that it was double the amount that was made available to charge payers in 1990–91. Any hon. Member listening as well as he could, given the acoustics of the House, would have thought that that was a generous settlement. He would have understood that the Secretary of State was doubling the poll tax reduction scheme from £20 million to £40 million.
  I am not given to personal hyperbole, but that statement was pretty close to being dishonest. What was missing was the figure for 1991–92. Instead of saying that the figure was only being doubled from £20 million to £40 million, the Secretary of State said that in 1991–92 it would be £60 million. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman was announcing a £20 million cut in the poll tax reduction scheme. Would anyone hearing that statement in the House or reading it understand that there was to be a £20 million reduction? The Secretary of State did not have the honesty or courage to explain the impact and consequence of the settlement.
  Mr. David Hunt: Perhaps I may correct the hon. Gentleman. This year, the figure is not £60 million but £62 million. That is a matter of public record. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when I announced the community charge reduction scheme, the estimated community charge was £140 higher than it turned out to be. Also, the local authorities that originally proposed the scheme had expressed doubts because they said that the level of money going into it was producing serious anomalies. I therefore rethought the scheme, believing that the last year of the community charge would be the wrong time to make a fundamental change.
  Mr. Rowlands: The Secretary of State cannot get away with that. If that is the explanation, why did not his statement include something to that effect? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say, "As a result of discussions, I have reduced the value of the scheme from £62 million to £40 million. I have kept £22 million." Instead, the Secretary of State disingenuously told the House, "I have doubled the 1990–91 figure." That is why we do not trust much of what is said about that settlement.
  The scheme was directly related to the individual poll tax payer. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what that £22 million cut means in my constituency, ward by ward.
  Mr. Hunt: The figure was not £22 million.
  Mr. Rowlands: Of course it was. As the right hon. Gentleman has misled the House once, let him listen to the figures.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not imagine that the hon. Member meant what he just said. Perhaps he will reflect on that remark, and rephrase it.
  Mr. Rowlands: I always thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, that "misled" was a legitimate parliamentary term.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know what I am talking about.
  Mr. Rowlands: I am suitably chastened, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course I withdraw that remark. However, I hope that I may apply the posh word "disingenuous" to the Secretary of State's statement to the House that he was doubling the amount available for poll tax reduction, when in fact he was cutting it by £22 million in respect of Welsh poll tax payers.
  Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend makes a devastating set of remarks about the Secretary of State's technique. I remind my hon. Friend of an exchange during Question Time, when the Secretary of State told the House that 100 per cent. of the poll tax was being collected. It took an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) to persuade the Secretary of State to correct himself, and say that he meant that 100 per cent. of expected poll tax collection—94 per cent. of that payable— was being collected.
  Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend emphasises my point. I will tell the Secretary of State the consequences of his £22 million cut in the poll tax reduction scheme for Welsh communities and wards such as those that I represent. In Bedlinog, the increase in the poll tax will be 40 per cent., before one additional penny is spent on extra salaries, services, or inflation; in Dowlais, 36 per cent.; in Merthyr Vale, 47 per cent.; in Pant, 23 per cent.; in Park, 22 per cent.; in Troedyrhiw, 49 per cent.
  That will be the effect on communities that are considered to be in deprived areas and deserving of extra support of the cut in the poll tax reduction scheme. Nothing in the Secretary of State's original statement or in his remarks tonight brought it home to people that that would be the true consequence of his decision.
  I hope that, if nothing else, we shall be able to print at the bottom of every poll tax demand issued in those wards the fact that the extra £17 that everyone must pay is the surcharge placed by the Secretary of State on those communities.
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Before the hon. Gentleman gets carried away, the House ought to be aware that, in Dowlais, for example, the amount of relief per charge payer in the coming year will be £41.
  Mr. Rowlands: But the actual amount payable will increase by 36 per cent. The Secretary of State did not make any announcement to that effect when he made his original statement or at the Dispatch Box earlier today. We should not be kidded in that way. The people of Wales and the people of my communities will not be kidded. This is a Hunt surcharge on poll tax payers in communities that, only a year or two ago, were said by the Secretary of State to be the poorest and most deprived.
  It is hard for anyone to come to terms with absolute statements of the kind made by the Secretary about increases in expenditure when responsible and respected borough and district treasurers, who are not known to suffer from hallucinations, tell us that, if environmental improvements, such as in waste disposal, are to be made, if they are to take up the generous allocation for home

  1051
  improvement grants, increase staffing, pay higher loan interest charges or even pursue policies mutually agreed between the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State and Labour-controlled county and district councils, the effect will be to increase the burden of revenue expenditure and to push those authorities to the level of potential capping.
  Borough treasurers write to my right hon. and hon. Friends, as they do to Conservative Members, pointing out the consequences of increased expenditure resulting from legislation passed by the House, and introduced in the pre-election run-up by a Secretary of State who seeks sometimes to humiliate local authorities into taking action under the so-called citizens charter. We are entitled to say that the responsibility should lie with those who made those decisions. When it comes to the introduction, the implementation, and, even in the poll tax's death throes, the cut in the reduction scheme, the Secretary of State is the person responsible for the burden we face.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Ian Grist: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is not in his place, because I was infuriated by his claim that the poorest of his and my constituents, and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, are suffering under the community charge. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they receive income support and that the element of income support calculated for community charge is based on the average charge for England and Wales—which is far higher than 20 per cent. of any community charge imposed in Wales.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside knows also that Welsh community charges are extremely low by any standard. Even Cardiff, and South Glamorgan this year, will be making a charge of less than £3 a week per head. That is a jolly good bargain for the services that are provided locally. Some of my constituents will be charged £1·60 per week after diminution, which is remarkable value.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) made the point that if local authorities and local government are to mean anything, they will have to raise more money locally. I wonder how people will squeal and scream at the charges and taxes that will be levied on them. If devolution were ever to come, would we ever have an assembly funded more than 90 per cent. by the British Parliament? You can bet your bottom dollar that would not happen, because the House would have no power over such an assembly, and would not be able to control its expenditure. It would, therefore, be a minimal amount which came from this place, with the maximum being raised in Wales by a Welsh assembly. Anyone who wants a Welsh assembly had better look out for the reaction of people in Wales to such a demand when they realise what will happen.
  Having served in the Welsh Office during the period of the community charge and being responsible for housing and other matters, I want to pay tribute to the local authorities in Wales and to say how fortunate we are in being a small country where Ministers can get to know the councillors in charge, the chairmen of committees, the treasurers and so on, and where we can sit round a table, know each other personally and thrash these things out.
  1052
  That is how standard spending assessments are worked out, in agreement with each other—a point somewhat overlooked after the announcement, when people strike attitudes. It is noticeable, however, that with this particular set of settlements attitudes are pretty wishy-washy. It is a very good and reasonable set of settlements. The amount that councils have been given is well ahead of inflation at a time when the economy is stuck. I should have thought that on any basis that is a very favourable settlement.
  The discipline brought by the community charge, together with the threat of charge capping, which has never had to be used in Wales, has encouraged councillors to increase efficiency and make every pound pay. If the Labour party got in and were to change the system yet again, and if they were to do away with the Audit Commission, which is part of their policy, we would be off again on the giddy roundabout.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned council house building in the splendid year of 1975, when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was going round telling councils to "spend, spend, spend". My word, they did, and 15 months later we were international paupers because we were bust. All hon. Members know just how their councils ground to a halt. A major estate in my constituency at Llanedeyrn came to a grinding halt with no shops, no facilities, nothing—houses not finished and roads uncompleted. Everything resulted from the crazy expenditure of money at that time. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney knows that very well.
  Mr. Rowlands: Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) remembers, as I do vividly, that what we had to do in 1974–75 was pick up half-built private housing estates that had gone bust during the last private Tory housing boom.
  Mr. Grist: I remember one estate in my area which the council "municipalised". As soon as we came to power in 1979 it was the fastest place for everyone to purchase his own house. I remember a party-political film unit coming to the constituency. I was asked where it could go to see people who wanted to buy their own houses, and I directed them to that estate, Ty Cerrig. They would have bought them from the word go. The municipalisation was unnecessary. It shows the sort of Government that we had then, which got away with municipalising, nationalising and spending. That is what we would have again. We have had a plethora of promises to free local government, which means spending more and more on housing, roads, education, all things which are highly desirable and all things on which we have been spending more money steadily and carefully; but under the promises of the Labour party we would have a burst of expenditure once again and we would be back to 1975, apparently the chosen year for the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside to remember.
  I would like to mention a purely constituency matter, although it has reference to what other hon. Members have said, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), with his medicentre and the row with South Glamorgan and the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, and that is South Glamorgan's behaviour over Corpus Christi school in my constituency.

  1053
  I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North for having brought this matter up several times in the past.
  Corpus Christi is a Roman Catholic school, the premises of which had been found to be unsafe. It is in a highly residential area and is long established. The area has been built up round the school so the roads which surround it have taken into account the layout of the school as regards traffic reactions and so forth. The authorities decided not to rebuild on site, although it is a big site and they could have done so perfectly well. They decided to move to a new green field site and sell the existing school. Because the proposal broke the local structure plan, the archdiocese and the county applied to the city council for permission to develop houses and to raise the money.
  The city council refused to give them permission. The county therefore purchased the 15 per cent. owned by the archdiocese and granted itself planning permission on the site. That is an abuse of power which we considered in 1990 and put out to consultation. I believe that we are going to put out some rulings on it shortly. but, unfortunately, perhaps not in time to catch that particular abuse.
  The site, with more than 100 houses, will debouch on to a small set of estate roads where, I am told, the traffic will be less than from the school. I find that unbelievable. Once cars are parked down one side of these roads, two-way traffic becomes difficult because one must dodge round the vehicles, so perhaps we shall have parking restrictions and all the rest of it clamped on the estate to accommodate the extra traffic which will flow out of these 100-plus executive houses.
  The school itself is planned to go out of my constituency to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, on a green field site on the edge of the city to which coaches will have to take all the pupils. It is a site for which a private Catholic school applied two years ago and was turned down, but the county has purchased the land for £1 million or £2 million—I forget which—and is prepared to grant itself planning permission yet again and to get Welsh Office funding to do so unless Welsh Water puts such a charge on the site that it becomes impossible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ought to think again, call in the proposal and consider the widespread unease and dismay at the activities of the county council in abusing its power. If county councils and other authorities abuse their power in this sort of way they lose a great deal of public sympathy which otherwise they thoroughly deserve.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Richard Livsey: The altercation that I had with the Secretary of State about finance in Powys is causing serious concern within the county, and I hope that there will be an early opportunity for the chief executive and representatives of that council to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the matter. The standard spending assessments hardly cover inflation, especially when it comes to current teachers' salaries.
  There will be further expenditure which local authorities will have to incur because of recent legislation.
  1054
  The Children Act 1989, in particular, places responsibilities on local authorities necessitating more resources. The same is true of community care and other recent legislation.
  In the settlements recently announced by the Secretary of State there are winners and losers. I thank him for a good settlement in Radnorshire. Unfortunately, his Department has blotted its copy book with Radnorshire in the past couple of days, something that I shall refer to later.
  The Secretary of State has been a little miserly in the settlement for Powys. Powys is setting a community charge of £100 which is spot on what the Secretary of State proposes. It has tried its best to work within his guidelines. The inevitable result, given the threat of capping, of some current settlements that authorities have achieved will be a cut in services in the coming financial year. In the districts there is a very sad story, with the failure to release funds from council house sales which has failed to fund the necessary housing to rent and will certainly fail to solve the housing crisis and resulting homelessness. As has already been mentioned, just over 70,000 people in Wales are on housing waiting lists. That is a serious and human problem, which confronts families every day.
  The Secretary of State has engaged in a discussion—almost a debate—with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the level of community charge collection. In previous years, the collection rate in my part of the world has reached 97 per cent., which is higher than the average of around 94 per cent. to which the Secretary of State referred. Local authorities in the area have been very responsible, although, like some hon. Members, they do not agree with the principles of the community charge.
  The Government's distribution of cash to local authorities is very much a lottery. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out, the system is complex and difficult to understand. It needs to be simplified, because the formulae involved create distortions.
  As I have said, we in Powys are very dissatisfied with our standard spending assessment. In an earlier intervention, I made a slight slip. I said that the revised assessment was 6·3 per cent., against a Welsh average of 8·2 per cent.—about 2 per cent. behind. Every time the Welsh Office revised the figures over the months between December and the present time, slightly less was allowed for in Powys. I do not mean that as a deliberate slight on the Secretary of State and his staff, but the fact remains that the regression analysis used to calculate the figures appeared to give Powys a smaller reward over those months.
  That needs some examination. The knock-on effect has meant a cut of £600,000 in Powys's education budget, and many schools in the local management of schools scheme are having to cut their budgets. In recent weeks, I have come across many village primary schools whose LMS budgets face cuts of between £12,000 and £20,000—and that, of course, means cuts in essential services.
  It is an enormous problem and it is compounded to some extent by the teachers' pay settlement. It all depends on how the counties have made their calculations for the coming year. We in Powys welcome the 7·5 per cent. settlement: teachers deserve a good settlement. It could have been better, but at least they have reaped some reward—although I suspect that it constitutes something

  1055
  of a sweetener. We have seen the same kind of sweetener in many parts of the public sector; we are, after all, within weeks of a general election.
  Although it is welcome, that 7·5 per cent. settlement does not cover the requirements of teachers' pay throughout 1992. The local authority must find a further 2·3 per cent. from the previous year. My authority's full-year costs for 1991–92 represent an additional I per cent., and it faces a total 9·8 per cent. increase in teachers' salary costs. That shortfall must be met from the SSA settlement of 6·1 per cent.
  We must take account of the precepts on county budgets. The Dyfed-Powys police authority, for example, has a precept of 11 per cent. in the coming financial year. That is way above the inflation level, but the county must find resources to assist the police authority. The land drainage precept has been increased by 10 per cent.—again, way above inflation. That puts the county budget in a difficult position. Then there are capital financing charges of 8·7 per cent. That must be added to the cost of extra pupil numbers in schools, and the implementation of the Children Act 1989. The additional demands on the county budget must be met; something has to give.
  The district councils are also experiencing variable results. Until the announcement by the Welsh Office on 11 February, we thought that the Radnorshire settlement announced on 20 January was fair. Somewhere along the line, however, Radnorshire lost £90,000 between the two dates. That is causing considerable problems for the Radnorshire treasurer, because many details of the budget had already been worked out. I know that the Secretary of State will be receiving representations from the district. In local authority finance terms, £90,000 may not sound much, but—as the Secretary of State well knows—Radnorshire is a relatively small authority.
  Mr. David Hunt: Late last night, Mr. Jonathan Evans telephoned me to say that there was some concern in Powys. I agreed with him, as I agree with the hon. Gentleman now, and I am very willing to speak to council officers if that is required.
  The recalculation of Radnorshire's SSA to take account of teachers' pay meant that, for reasons of consistency, other changes that had arisen after the original calculations had been undertaken needed to be taken into account. They included the surrender of supplementary credit approvals totalling £600,000, because of the decision not to proceed with the Llandridnod Wells leisure centre. The approvals have been recycled for use by other districts and the loan charges element of Radnorshire's SSA has been reduced as a result.
  Radnorshire still has a higher percentage increase in SSA than any other district—19·1 per cent., compared with an average of 8·7 per cent. Its SSA has increased by over 43 per cent. since 1991.
  Mr. Livsey: I thank the Secretary of State for going into such detail. Those developments, however, result from changes in teachers' pay—which, after all, is a county rather than a district function. I know that there is a spin-off.
  Mr. Hunt: I was merely saying that, irrespective of the county function, the fact that the figures were being recalculated because of the need to take the county's
  1056
  figures into account meant that the district's figures were brought up to date. Of course, Radnorshire's figures have nothing to do with the teachers' pay calculations.
  Mr. Livsey: Nonetheless, quite a stir has been created in the district, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will receive representations from it, too. I hope that he will take more notice of the statements that I am making than of quotations that he appears to have received from my Conservative opponent in the constituency. He has a tendency to listen more readily to Conservative candidates throughout Wales than to Welsh Members of Parliament. That is a very unacceptable state of affairs, which has been repeated time and again.
  On the other hand, I am very grateful indeed to the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet a deputation from Powys. I know that they welcome that opportunity. 1 hope that by thanking the Secretary of State for it I shall make it clear that I want to be even-handed.
  There is a very sad state of affairs in housing. The current extent of homelessness is entirely unacceptable. I spent part of last Saturday evening trying to assist a parent and four children to get a roof over their heads for the night. The family ended up in a police station looking for help. I am sure that that experience is shared by many Members of Parliament. We are having to pick up the pieces of a failed housing policy. It is immoral that people should be thrown on to the streets because affordable housing is unavailable as a result of the failure to build council houses in the last five years. The Government are refusing to release funds—the councils' own funds—for this purpose. In respect of housing, as in respect of the poll tax, the Government have failed. The poll tax is one of the worst reforms to have been introduced this century. It does not address the question of ability to pay, and we are now talking about a local government settlement that involves picking up the pieces.
  9 pm
  Mr. Keith Raffan: Before coming to my main remarks I should like to express strong support for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) about the Rhuddlan bypass, which is important not only to the town of Rhyl in his constituency but to the town of Prestatyn in my own. Both towns depend heavily on the tourist industry, and it is important that access to them is easy. The bypass will improve access, so it is important that work be started as soon as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear these remarks in mind. We understand from Clwyd county council that the reason for the postponement is connected with the transport supplementary grant.
  I want to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out in his opening remarks, the level of central Government support for local authority revenue expenditure in 1991–92 shows an increase from 79 per cent. to nearly 93 per cent. I do not regard this as a healthy development, even though it is probably temporary. We are rapidly approaching the position taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson): that all local authority revenue should be raised centrally, that we should abandon any attempt whatsoever to replace the rates whether by the poll tax, or the council tax—or whatever else is proposed. I do not go along with that, although I have reservations about the council tax, to

  1057
  which I shall come in a moment. We are rapidly approaching a situation in which central Government provide nearly all the finance for local authorities. That is not healthy. I believe in strong, representative local government. If we are to have that, councils must have a right to raise revenue to a much greater extent than is the case now or is likely to be the case with the council tax.
  Before elaborating on those remarks I should like to comment briefly on one or two aspects of the community charge in its dying days. The average cost of collecting the minimum contribution of 20 per cent. of poll tax from those on social security benefit is £6 more per head than the amount raised. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not usually like this. I am actually supporting him, but he is ignoring my support. It is important that we realise how expensive it is to collect the poll tax from people on benefit. It is absurd that the cost should be £6 more per head than the amount collected. The whole 20 per cent. is covered by the uprating of income support. In fact, people in Wales who are on benefit do well. They receive an uprating of 20 per cent. of the average community charge throughout England and Wales. Surely the sensible thing for the Government to do would have been to reduce the income support by 20 per cent. rather than waste money in attempts at collection. Surely it would be fairly easy to do this and cheaper than collection of the 20 per cent.
  The case for abolition of the minimum calculation is overwhelming—[Interruption.] I want to get on. As I am agreeing with points that have been made by the Opposition, I do not understand how contention can arise. This is an unnecessary distraction for councils at a time when the transfer to the council tax is having to be made.
  The second point relates to the community charge reduction scheme. My right hon. Friend knows that I have always been unhappy about the fact that we have a different community charge reduction scheme in Wales from that in England. The English system is much fairer and much better targeted. It is targeted towards individuals rather than towards whole community council areas. When my right hon. Friend made his statement on 13 January, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said that, if my right hon. Friend's predecessor had listened to local government leaders in Wales, he would not have produced such an "inane" scheme.
  When I tackled my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) on the issue when he was Secretary of State for Wales he said that he had listened to local government leaders in Wales and that they had come out in favour of a community charge reduction scheme that was oriented towards community council areas rather than towards individuals, the argument being that that would cost a lot less to administer and therefore there would be more money to spread around.
  This scheme has created absurd anomalies. To illustrate my point, let me take the example of Rhyl and Prestatyn. The west end of Rhyl is a very deprived area. In 1991–92, Rhyl poll tax payers had a reduction of £48, whereas the poll tax payers of Prestatyn—many of them in similar housing, and in some cases in less good housing—had a reduction of £1. In the next financial year, 1992–93, the reduction in Rhyl will be £31 and in Prestatyn zero. The whole thing is cockeyed. It is as unfair and inequitable as the rates. It would have been much more sensible and
  1058
  much fairer for us to have adopted the English system that is oriented towards individuals rather than towards community council areas.
  Mr. David Hunt: I thought very carefully about this, as my hon. Friend knows, and considered what he has just said, but I felt that in the final year of the community charge or poll tax it would have been wrong to ask everybody in Wales to complete an application form for community charge relief. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that.
  Mr. Raffan: Yes, but rather than giving blanket assistance to all people in a community council area, it would have been far better in the first place to direct it towards those individuals who have suffered particularly badly.
  My right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench regard the council tax as a safe haven from the poll tax. They believe that the storms will abate and that we shall sail into smoother waters. The Opposition look smug, but how many versions of a replacement for the poll tax have they produced? Is it 63, at the latest count, or 64? Perhaps there has not been one this week. The Opposition have been very quiet this week, but no doubt there will be at least one more press conference at which they will produce one more version of their replacement for the poll tax.
  The Opposition have to be fair. It is all very well for them to attack Conservative Members and Treasury Bench Ministers. I was a member of the Committee that considered the poll tax Bill and I am as guilty as anybody. I regret my support for the poll tax. If the Opposition want me to apologise, that is fine, but at the same time they must apologise for crawling to the International Monetary Fund in 1976 and for slashing public expenditure on water and sewerage infrastructure and so on when the last Labour Government were in power. If they are prepared to do that, we shall be quits. My point is that they have to come up with their final alternative and they have not yet done so. I notice that no Labour Member is rising to his feet. I certainly do not want to encourage any of them to do so.
  I understand that the council tax will provide about 14 per cent. of local authority revenue, on average, in the United Kingdom, but even less in Wales. The rest will be provided by central Government grant and the uniform business rate. In my view, that is far too low a percentage of local authority revenue to be raised by means of a local tax.
  The council tax alone is under local authority control and must finance any additional council spending. On average, a 1 per cent. increase in spending will require at least a 7 per cent. increase in council tax bills. The gearing, therefore, is 7:1. It may be more than that. I was interested in what the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) had to say about standard spending assessments, which he referred to as "estimates"—which is clearly what they are. They are not precisely determined and can never be so. However, the amount of gearing depends upon the accuracy of the SSAs, which are the Government's estimate of the amount that counties need to spend to provide a standard level of service. As 1 say, they cannot be calculated precisely and the council tax increase that will be required to cover any underestimate in the SSAs will be magnified by the gearing factor.

  1059
  Gearing was a major factor, if not the sole factor, in the downfall of the poll tax. Yet it is still a major feature of the council tax. That is what concerns me. The council tax is a better and fairer tax. I will not get too carried away because, although I will not be here in the next Parliament, my words may be thrown back at my hon. Friends. I am not particularly enamoured by the council tax. At least it got us off the hook of the poll tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We all know that, so why not say it. We do not want to move from one fire into another fire and, as I have said, I am concerned about gearing.
  The only way around the gearing problem, to diminish it, would be for councils to control more than the current 14 per cent. of their expenditure in the United Kingdom as a whole. That could be done by reducing the number of services for which councils are responsible. I am not keen on that idea and I do not think that many hon. Members would be keen on it because most of us believe in local government and I want to see it strengthened. I would not be too unhappy about the fire service and the police being hived off, but no more than that.
  Another way to diminish gearing would be to make councils responsible for raising more of their revenue. We could, for example, give them control of the business rate. I have reservations about that. At least now business and industry are able to plan ahead, knowing roughly the bills they will be facing with the uniform business rate.
  I remember my first few years in the House. Just before the rates were set, industries and businesses came to see me as they were justifiably anxious about the rise in rates in Clwyd. So, if they were once again to be given control of the business rate, there would have to be certain limits so that increases would not damage industry or competitiveness. There must be other ways to diminish the gearing factor and I should like them to be examined. Councils should have the right to raise more of their revenue.
  The main problem with the council tax or any major reform of local government finance—on this I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West and, although we did not compare notes, we think similarly —is that we are dealing with local government reforms the wrong way round. We are dealing with them in reverse order. This follows what I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech. We should have started with functions and internal management, moved on to format and structure and then dealt with how to finance the new structure with its revised functions. That is what we should have done in an ideal world. However, we are in a post-poll tax world, not an ideal one. Because of the political necessity of replacing the poll tax as soon as possible we had to deal with local government finance first. If we had done it in the order that I suggested, we would have had a much better chance of getting the local government finance system right.
  All local government reforms—functions, finance and format—should be conceived and considered in relation to an all-Wales tier. I said on the radio the other morning, probably before most hon. Members were up—although I know that one person was up—that the first attempt to introduce Welsh home rule was an amendment to a Bill dealing with local government. It was moved by T. E. Ellis, the then Member for Merionethshire. That is how home
  1060
  rule was first attempted in Wales. Post second world war, it has been referred to as devolution. We must look at an all-Wales tier in a pragmatic way.
  It is no use my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary talking about a Mickey Mouse Parliament. That will not convince anybody. There must be arguments from Ministers on this issue. If we move to one-tier authorities, where will the strategic planning and the transport and infrastructure planning happen, and who will carry it out? These are all-Wales issues and they need an all-Wales tier. Currently, on devolution, the Government seem to be blinded by the headlights of public opinion, stunned and unable to move other than to grope robotically for historic allusions to past referendums that have no relation to the here and now.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today. That is progress—we are to have a debate on the constitutional issue and, indeed, we should do so. As I said during business questions the other week, if the Scots are to have three debates—one in Edinburgh—we should at least have one, and I am glad that it is to be in Cardiff. I hope that the Under-Secretary will respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea, East and I earlier today in the Grand Committee. I raise it again now because it received no response—we should have that debate before mid-March, preferably before the Budget so that it will happen during this Parliament. It is an election issue and must be debated before the election.
  A new local government tax cannot be successfully conceived and born in isolation, cut off from discussion of the functions and format for which it will pay. Indeed, it should have been considered and debated not only in those contexts but in the much wider context of how local government is to fit in with regional government because they are interlocked and fitted into the government of the nation as a whole.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: We shall miss the rapid-fire verbosity of the hon. Member for whatever it is in north Wales. Between his speech and the tie of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), I feel rather dizzy. I do not know whether it is the Amman Valley old boy's tie that he is wearing but at least it adds a little colour to the occasion.
  Because of the strictures on time, I shall deal with only two problems, one of which I rehearsed in the Welsh Grand Committee but to which the Minister of State did not answer—the problem of the teachers' pay award. I hope that it can be dealt with during the wind-up speech. I deal with the issue as it applies to Mid-Glamorgan.
  As I said in the Grand Committee, if the 7·8 per cent. overall award is granted, Mid-Glamorgan will have to find £1·7 million to pay it. The Government are going to give it additional funding of only £700,000, which means that Mid-Glamorgan will have to find £1 million—a very nice convenient figure. What can Mid-Glamorgan do about the shortfall? It could cut services, which it has already done in some areas; the only alternative—I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening—is to put £3 on the poll tax, and Mid-Glamorgan will have to do that unless the Under-Secretary of State can say now that the Government are prepared to fund the whole of the award.
  We know that the award has been made at this time for electoral purposes, so why do not the Secretary of State

  1061
  and the Government have the guts to fund it? If one is going to bribe people, one should at least have the gumption to pay the whole bribe. One should not tell people to pay three quarters of the bribe themselves. That is a bit unfair—even by this Government's yardstick, it is a bit much.
  The authority is already budgeting to maintain services: it is about 2·2 per cent. over its standard spending assessment, so there is no way it can fund the award without pushing up the poll tax. I know that you would pull me up for using bad parliamentary language, Madam Deputy Speaker; I would have liked to say that the Government have a bloody cheek to act in the way they have, but I am not allowed to say that.
  Another issue about which I am very concerned is that of rents of factories. I am not sure what is happening in Wales, but I have suddenly received a rush—or a rash, however one wants to describe it—of papers coming through my fax from companies in the Rhondda which are being asked for huge rent rises from the Welsh Development Agency or the local authority. Whoever owns these factories—[interruption.] May I ask my hon. Friends to allow me to develop my case for a moment?
  The rent rises, whether from the local authority or the WDA, are instigated by the district valuer. He is obliged to advise local authorities on economic rents when the revision takes place—it is like chasing one's tail. The district valuer says to the council, "That is what I consider an economic rent," and the councillors have to implement that rent. If they ignore it, they will be surcharged and called before the district auditor.
  The situation is ridiculous. The Rhondda valley has high unemployment, and by any socio-economic indicator it is one of the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom. New factories are being built there, and the Government are saying how wonderful they are to help. I applaud the development, because we need the factories, but now the factories are being shut down because nobody can afford to pay the rents. The daft thing about it all is that 30 per cent. of the factories are empty anyway.
  Local authorities have to charge the rents charged by the district valuers, or risk being surcharged. That means that firms are getting thrown out of factories or having to leave them, and people are being thrown out of work. Buildings are being vandalised because there is no one there. That all results in an even greater charge on the community.
  I have raised two practical points, and I hope that they can be resolved. The first is the fact that the county council will have to add at least £3 per head to the poll tax in order to fund the electoral bribe for teachers. The second is the issue of rent increases for factories run by the Welsh Development Agency or by local authorities. I should appreciate it if the Minister would deal with those two matters.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Gwilym Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) on achieving the brevity that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have sought from us all the evening. I shall try to emulate him.
  I do not understand why the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) brought up the hoary old chestnut of unspent council receipts. I invite the hon. Gentleman to identify one bank account in Wales in which
  1062
  a local council has on deposit council house receipts that it cannot spend. Such a bank account does not exist anywhere in Wales. Will the hon. Gentleman find me one?
  The moneys are used to repay debts already accumulated by councils—and rightly so. If they were not, local community charge payers would have to pay twice.
  Mr. Huw Edwards rose—
  Mr. Jones: I shall give way once only. I am trying to be brief.
  Mr. Edwards: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in the past 10 years, £741 million has accrued to local authorities in Wales through capital receipts, and that 25 per cent. is still supposed to be spent, according to the Under-Secretary of State? Is he convinced that 25 per cent. of capital receipts in Cardiff is being spent?
  Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman walks into the same pitfall as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor. I invite him, too, to identify one bank account in Wales in which moneys are lying, not being used. The moneys are being used to redeem debt, and rightly so.
  I shall pick up the theme pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). It may be superficially tempting to say what a good deal a community charge represents. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the average for Wales should be £85—only 7 per cent. of the total that local councils spend. My arithmetic tells me that, for every average community charge of £85, some £1,214 is being contributed from sources outside the local council.
  However, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) tried to say on one of his frequent visits to the Chamber, nothing is for free. It is we, the taxpayers, who have to pay all that money—from whatever source it comes. It therefore behoves us as Members of Parliament
  —indeed, it behoves every citizen—carefully to consider all the implications of local council spending.
  The reports before the House are good ones. As my right hon. Friend has said, they again put us in a position superior to that of England. They provide an increase of 8·5 per cent. over the comparable figure for last year, and even a 5·1 per cent. increase over the budgets of local councils in Wales. No one could suggest that that is not an increase in real terms, however, those real terms are calculated.
  The aggregate external finance has increased by a massive 24 per cent. As my right hon. Friend said today, and in his statement on 13 January, he expects local councils to rise to the challenge. He was wise to remind us of his capping powers. It would be desirable if we could continue not to use those powers, but I do not believe for one moment that we should flinch from using them should that be necessary.
  I am particularly pleased that the uniform business rate has gone up by less than the rate of inflation. That is most important at a time when we want to complete the recovery from the recession. That business rate is a great relief to local companies in comparison with the situation they faced not so long ago, when they were at the mercy of local councils. In the past, Cardiff has been subject to some horrendous rate increases—for example, 97·5 per cent. one year and 54 per cent. another.
  In the first year in which the community charge operated, it was reliably estimated that it should have been

  1063
  set at £150, but we ended up with a charge of £250. Thanks to the Government, relief from community charge payments has been extended to all community charge payers in Cardiff. The reduction of £140 halved that community charge.
  If prudent financial practices had been followed from the beginning by South Glamorgan council, the community charge of Cardiff could have been set at the same level as that for Wandsworth. We could have had a zero community charge.
  If I was a member of the Opposition, perhaps I would now be talking about the hidden agenda. Such a discussion about Cardiff is not necessary, because South Glamorgan council, in advance of its community charge debate tomorrow afternoon, has published its plans for extra spending that it would like to undertake. They amount to another £25 million on top of the SSA.
  I have been warned by Councillor Bernard Rees, the leader of the Conservative group on South Glamorgan council, that if, heaven forbid, there was a Labour Government, the community charge for everyone in Cardiff would double overnight. My right hon. Friend has already pointed out that even worse might befall those of us in Cardiff, because he told us how the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) envisaged that the community charge in Wales would treble. Instead of the current charge of £140, every charge payer in Cardiff might have to find a minimum of £450. It is conspicuous that, when my right hon. Friend raised that matter in the Welsh Grand Committee earlier and in the Chamber tonight, there was no answer from those sitting on the Labour Front Bench.
  What have we got to show in Cardiff for the extortionate demands placed upon the charge payers? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central has already referred to some peculiar commercial developments that the council has insisted upon. He reminded us of the tennis centre at Sully, and about the Gardenhurst centre for old people in Penarth. I will not comment on them, because they are outside my constituency, but I understand that they are being forced through in the teeth of great local opposition with complete disregard for local people's feelings.
  My hon. Friend also referred to Corpus Christi high school, in which I have an interest because there are plans to relocate it at a green field site in my constituency. My local residents and councillors are just as fiercely opposed to that, and I shall continue to support them.
  The most notorious of the controversial proposals is to build a medicentre—a commercial development—on one of the few open spaces of the University hospital of Wales. Why on earth is the council going in for that commercial development, especially as it is on a national health service site? Have we any confidence that the council could make those commercial developments work? I have little confidence, and I certainly would not entrust any commercial developments to it.
  What else have we got to show for the high demands placed upon charge payers? We spent a lot of time today in Committee talking about education. Unfortunately, South Glamorgan council is one of the lowest spenders per head on education. Local citizens would immediately want to ask about the roads. By local repute, we have some of the worst roads in Wales. I recently called on a constituent,
  1064
  Mr. Full, who is trying to get one solitary extra light in Rhiwbina. He has received exactly the same correspondence from the council for the past 10 years. In fact, he has ended up with a more depressing reply than the one he first received 10 years ago.
  I listened intently to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), but I listened in vain for something substantial. I heard some hypocrisy about the RECHAR money, and I feel strongly about that. It is our money, because Britain is a net contributor to the Common Market. At best, it is an example of the problems with which the Government are trying to deal. The Common Market should be a collection of equal sovereign states and money should not be withheld at the whim of bureaucrats.
  At worst, it is a case of party politics, because the Commissioner who seeks to thwart our desire for that money is a Labour nominee. I should be more than curious to know what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has been doing to persuade his Labour colleague to stop blocking that money for Britain.
  I also listened in vain to the hon. Gentleman's speech for a clear-cut answer about how much he would give local councils in Wales. His speech was full of criticism of the Government, but he had no positive proposals to make.
  Devolution has been mentioned by more than one hon. Member. I am sure that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) is striving to speak, but before he does so, may I say this: hands off Cardiff city hall. Cardiff city hall is the much-loved headquarters of our local council. For as long as any citizen of Cardiff can remember, it has been the home of Cardiff's local council. I hope that, after the reform of local government in Wales, we shall make that city hall once again the headquarters of a much more local, relevant and loved local council. I accept that we can allow visitors in, but we should never let the city hall be taken over by a remote quango.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon is right to be concerned about the form and geographical convenience of a regional assembly for Wales, but it should be in the style of a slatted shed usually preferred by DIY distributors. Moreover, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Welsh people would prefer it to be sited in Aberystwyth.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: It is interesting that, of the four Conservative Back Benchers from Wales, two have spoken in favour of an elected all-Wales body, albeit their viewpoints differ from mine. I advocate strongly that there should be a national parliament but the need for democracy on a all-Wales level is now becoming an accepted factor. In considering the future of the government of Wales, the future of local government or the structure of financing, the all-Wales aspect must be taken into account. We cannot continue as we are, possibly into another Parliament. If the Government win the election and return for the fourth time as a Conservative Government, perhaps with even fewer seats in Wales—of the 38 seats, the Conservatives hold only six —a democratic deficit will have to be met.
  Another problem is how to achieve a proper strategic body if we move to a local government structure as proposed by the Secretary of State in his consultation document. All those questions must be taken on board.

  1065
  Many hon. Members have referred tonight to the nonsense into which local government finance has now entered. No one could argue that the proportions coming from the centre are probably too high. The methods of raising money at local government level worry all of us. The poll tax is a nonsense and its residual elements are still grotesquely unfair, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said. However, no one could argue that, if we are to have local democracy, the need to raise money locally should not be taken on board. The question is how that should be done fairly and how we can achieve a proper balance between central and local responsibility.
  One of the problems is that, in so many ways, local government acts as an agency for central Government. It cannot control so many of its responsibilities and it cannot decide what it does because it is constrained by legislation.
  Mr. Anderson: There is very little discretion.
  Mr. Wigley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the coming year we shall face more responsibility falling on local government in Wales. In 12 months time, the community care package will land. My local authority of Gwynedd faces a bill of some £750,000 and has asked the Secretary of State for help with that money in order to tackle care in the community. As more responsibilty is placed on local government, it will inevitably look to the centre for funding. Clearly, somebody has to pay for those activities, and we must have care in the community. It is not a cut-price option and must be paid for. We must introduce a mechanism to do so in an equitable manner so that those who can afford to shoulder a greater proportion of the burden do so.
  My party and I favour a local income tax, but we could argue about the exact way of going about it. However, if local democracy is to mean something, there must be a fund-raising mechanism. I accept that that is equally true on the all-Wales level. If there is to be a meaningful all-Wales tier of government, that must have financial responsibility, which means the ability to raise funds. That could possibly be done by transfer to that organisation of some of the taxes currently raised—for example, value added tax.
  I asked a question of the Secretary of State that has still not been answered. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) mentioned the Mid-Glamorgan equivalent of the issue that I raised in the context of Gwynedd, where we have a £500,000 shortfall in relation to the teachers' pay settlement, which has implications. If, as Gwynedd people have told me today, the implications involve either the sacking of a significant number of teachers or a significant increase in the poll tax, I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to look at the figures that Gwynedd proposes and show where they are wrong, if they are. If they are right, I hope that he will face up to the implications of that.
  We face a housing crisis. One half, or even two thirds, of the cases that come up in surgery after surgery involve people who cannot find a place to live. The Secretary of State cannot avoid the fact that there is a crisis. Since 1979, the number of rented accommodation units available from local authorities has dropped from 308,000 to 226,000—a reduction of 82,000 in the number of council houses in Wales due to the Government's policy of selling them off.
  1066
  Those houses are no longer available and, as the cycle revolves, with people dying off or moving away, their houses are not available for letting to people on the list.
  In the same period, the number of private rented accommodation units in Wales has dropped from 114,000 to 80,000—a reduction of 34,000. We have to counter balance against that an increase of only 14,000 in housing association units. Therefore, although we have lost 116,000 units, we have gained just 14,000—a net loss of 102,000.
  Those problems would not be as bad if the people involved were in a financial position to buy their own houses, but they are not. They are out of work or, if they are in work, they have the insecurity of seeing redundancies and closures all around them.
  In the Dwyfor district of my constituency, 400 people are on the waiting list for housing and cannot get houses, 20 per cent. of the housing stock are second homes which are empty for large proportions of the year and there are 800 houses on the market that people cannot sell. They are for sale at prices that people cannot afford to buy, and the local authority does not have the resources to buy the houses to rent them to those who want them. That is mismanagement.
  We must crack the problem because we are creating social problems. What I have described in Dwyfor is as bad or even worse in the Arfon district, where it is compounded by the growth of University College of North Wales, Bangor. We welcome the fact that that institution is enjoying such a successful period, but, as the Minister of State knows full well, the availability of housing in Bangor is chronically low. Some 1,500 people in the Arfon district are on the waiting list. People are sleeping out and sleeping in cars, while families are having to split up, with some members living with the father and some with the mother as they have nowhere to live. That problem must be tackled.
  I urge the Secretary of State to look at the financial mechanisms available to local authorities in the coming year to find a way to enable them—in one way or another —to get housing moving again so that it is available for rent to those who need it. There is a desperate need, and we must tackle the problem as a matter of urgency.
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The most telling part of tonight's debate was the Secretary of State's confession that he considered the English system for the reduction in the charge to be superior—he nodded earlier. He had considered changing the system, but he decided against it. He was told many times in the Chamber last year and received many letters from my constituents and those of other hon. Members urging him to change the system. The reason he gave for not doing so was that he did not want people to fill out a form.
  My constituents in Rogerstone in Newport will be paying £158 in poll tax this year, rather than the £117 that people in other parts of the town will be paying. I am sure that everyone in Rogerstone will be happy to fill out the form if it will save £41—
  Mr. David Hunt: In many ways the English system is superior—after all, I devised it when I was the Minister responsible for local government, but I recognised that what local authorities in Wales had proposed was a simple. direct system that did not involve the administrative costs

  1067
  of the English system. So it is not just a question of filling out a form; it is also a question of administrative costs that would greatly reduce the amount of money available in the first place.
  Mr. Flynn: The scheme in Newport, West is uniquely demented, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman before. Every poll tax payer there will pay an average extra £17. That has nothing to do with local authorities , or with the right hon. Members for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) or for Worcester (Mr. Walker)—the £17 extra this year is due to the Secretary of State. My constituents accept that. What they will not accept is the reason why they pay more in Rogerstone than in Wentloog which, extraordinarily enough, has nothing to do with the fact that one area is deprived and the other prosperous, that one contains many people on income support and the other does not. The reason is that one area has more farms than the other.
  Under this crude system, the old rates were looked at. Some areas containing a large number of farms which paid little or no rates—I refer to Wentloog and Nash—pay rates that are artificially low, but deprived areas containing people on low incomes pay high rates. That extraordinary anomaly applies to Newport but not to Rhondda and many other constituencies in Wales. The Secretary of State has been told about this. I invite him to Rogerstone community centre and to the other areas paying the Hunt levy, which amounts to about £41 extra—and it is not due to additional council charges. It is due to decisions taken by the Secretary of State, who could have changed his mind but did not. My constituents will have to pay this levy because of a blunder by the Secretary of State.
  9.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Hain: Listening to the mumbo-jumbo of the Secretary of State's speech, it seemed to me that he was relying far too heavily on the teenage scribblers in the Welsh Office who tell him that all his financial increases mean that local authorities are doing well. At the end of it all, however, West Glamorgan's education budget for the teachers' pay settlement is underfunded by £1 million. That in turn has led to the education budget having to be cut by £2·1 million this year. When the Under-Secretary replies, perhaps he will tell us whether he agrees with that cut, on which he has insisted.
  Meanwhile, the poll tax continues in place. According to the Local Government Information Unit, it has cost the people of Wales £1 billion: two years of £140 subsidy, collection losses estimated by the Audit Commission, the cost of the community charge reduction scheme, the cost of transitional relief and the cost of setting up and administering the poll tax.
  The unfair and oppressive 20 per cent. rule is still in place; every £6 collected under it costs local authorities £15 to collect. Leaving aside questions of equity, how can it make sense to maintain the 20 per cent. rule on grounds of efficiency? The oppressive unfairness of the tax continues. On Saturday morning I saw in my surgery a pensioner whose husband had died in December and who had received a poll tax arrears bill for £1·95 even though she and he had paid their bills to the borough council on the dot, week in, week out. We all know of similar examples, and the poll tax will continue to be a major issue in the general election.
  1068
  Another issue that continues to dog the people of Neath is the discriminatory system of transitional relief that the Welsh Office operates. For example, the community area of Blaehonddan is getting no transitional relief this coming year, just as it got none in the year 1991–92. How can it be right that a pensioner couple, with a small miner's pension that takes them above the income support level, should be receiving no transitional relief, while I, with a Member of Parliament's salary, in the area of Resolven am receiving £68 transitional relief? There is no equity in that. We both depend on the same services and we both pay for those services, and we do not get anything more or less for that contribution. I ask the Secretary of State to look again at the way that this system is worked.
  I have another point, about gearing and the enormous centralisation of financing of local government that has taken place under this Conservative Government. The position is worse than was suggested by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan). Because only 7 per cent. of a local authority's revenue is raised locally, for every 1 per cent. increase in revenue, the poll tax has to go up by 14 per cent. That is an enormous centralisation. It is not local accountability—it is local strangulation.
  After 13 years of destructive rule by the Conservative Government, Wales at last has the opportunity to regenerate local democracy, to empower local communities and give them the right to have a say over their destiny. We shall get that right from a Labour Government.
  9.46 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: Some of my colleagues have already talked about the housing crisis in their authorities. The difference between the authority that I represent and those that my hon. Friends represent is that I represent the only Conservative district authority in Wales. No Government policy has been more incompetent and inhumane than their housing policy.
  A written answer to a question that I put to the Secretary of State shows that £741 million has accrued to local authorities from the sale of council houses in the past 10 years. My authority of Monmouth has accrued £24 million, of which £;10 million has been accumulated in the past three years. Brecknock, the authority of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), has accumulated £24 million, of which £15 million has come in the past three years. In Cardiff, the figures are £79 million in the past 10 years, of which £29 million has come in the past three years. This has happened since the Housing Acts of 1988 and 1989 which effectively put an end to the development of housing by local authorities.
  The Government's theory is that local authorities should be enabling people to buy housing, so we have to ask how the Secretary of State and his policies have enabled people on the waiting list in my constituency to get into housing. Those who cannot afford to buy find that there is nothing to rent. The Government introduced legislation that was intended to stimulate the private sector, but we have seen from the figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that the number of private rented units in Wales has declined. Even in the Government's terms, their policies have failed miserably.
  In Monmouth there are 2,500 households on the council house waiting list. There is rising homelessness and

  1069
  no purpose-built accommodation for homeless people. Despite that, the housing revenue subsidy has been cut this year. It is £200,000 short of expenditure on housing benefit. That confirms what people have been saying for years, since the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, that those on low incomes in council houses are subsidising those on the lowest income who are dependent on housing benefit.
  Council rents in Monmouth are due to go up by £5·25 across the board. That is a 19 per cent. increase, which is far higher than the increase in the rate of inflation. Officials and councillors are highly embarrassed about the way in which they have to implement those policies in the only Conservative-controlled authority in Wales. In the housing department, three posts are being frozen at a time when it is trying to decentralise its services.
  If Monmouth borough council has been able to spend 25 per cent. of its revenue from the sale of council houses in the past three years, why has not one house been built this year? Where has that 25 per cent. of £10 million gone? There is widespread concern in my constituency that that money is being put aside to build new council headquarters on land partly owned by the leader of Monmouth borough council. That was suggested on an HTV Wales television documentary just before Christmas. I hope that it can be confirmed that that is not the case, but there is no support for the building of new council headquarters at Portskewett on the edge of my constituency and the borough.
  Even if we accept the Government's argument that money is going into housing associations, only 108 houses are under construction by housing associations in the current year according to a reply to me from the Under-Secretary of State during Welsh questions two weeks ago. How on earth will those 108 houses enable the 2,500 households on the council house waiting list to be rehoused? I can only conclude that, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the Government have no policy which is more incompetent and which even in their own terms has failed more than their housing policy. We need a Labour Government to rectify that.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I want to return to the question of the funding of the teachers' pay award, because the Secretary of State, in his answer to my earlier intervention, showed that he knew the answer to my question but was hiding under the hypothecation halo of the Treasury. He told us at the beginning that, in drawing up his plans for local government spending and the Government's contribution towards it, he had estimated what the teachers' pay award would be. He admitted that he had underestimated, and so had made a further contribution.
  Therefore, I plainly asked the right hon. Gentleman what the difference was that the local authorities would have to find, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us when he replies. In Mid-Glamorgan, the difference is about £1 million, and in West Glamorgan it is a similar figure. In South Glamorgan it is not far short of that. The Minister must be able to give the figure that the local authorities are expected to find by way of efficiency savings to make up that shortfall.
  How does the Welsh Office estimate the efficiency savings that local authorities can make when it draws up
  1070
  its funding proposals for local government? Year by year, it has assumed that there is scope for such efficiency savings. Can it give us an estimate of the likely efficiency savings in local government for the coming financial year? At the same time, will the Minister tell us what the efficiency savings for the Welsh Office will be for the forthcoming year?
  Is it not true that central Government spending has risen massively during the Government's lifetime? They have the audacity to accuse local government of overspending and to turn the screw on it while not accepting the blame for their own profligacy, of which the poll tax is the outstanding example. If Ministers had been any body of councillors in the United Kingdom, they would have been surcharged and prevented from serving on any elected body for the rest of their lives.
  Local authorities are having to struggle desperately to maintain services. That struggle resulted in appalling decisions having to be taken. The Secretary of State pointed out that my own authority is in the top four for poll tax collection in Wales. There are stories of human hardship and misery behind the accumulation of that money. In the last two months of this year, Ogwr, which has a good record for poll tax collection, will stop the adaptation of properties for the disabled. That is an outrage, but the money has run out. The provision of central heating for people having medical priorities has been stopped because the authority does not have the money for that either.
  The Welsh Office says that it is the provider of largesse beyond the dreams of any local government leader, yet there is example after example of difficult decisions being made by local authorities as to which services can be provided, and which must be cut back.
  The Government and Welsh Office Ministers will not have the opportunity to bring about their threats of poll tax capping, because after 9 April they will not be in office. It will again be left to a Labour Government to pick up the pieces of the disaster that Tory rule has brought to Wales. Local government spending priorities will have to be reordered to ensure that the people who really need help will get it in the coming financial year.
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I want to say one word to the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, and that is "increments". It is a little like a scene in "The Graduate", in which one of the characters says to Ben, "I just want to say one word to you—plastics." I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, remember that scene from "The Graduate", which I am sure you saw several times—unless you went to see "The Sound of Music" instead.
  The word "increments" is critical. County treasurers say, "If only the Welsh Office would accept the impact of increments on the total cost of teachers' pay next year, compared with this year, there would be no need for 90 per cent. of the hassle and haggling involved in arguing, as we are now, whether or not the rate support grant settlement is fair."
  I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's reply to my earlier intervention, when I asked whether local government finance experts in the Welsh Office had reached agreement with county council treasurers' departments on the total cost of providing next year the

  1071
  same basket of local government services, and the percentage increase required to meet it—known as a service standstill budget.
  South Glamorgan has a no-growth budget, but that is not the same as a service standstill budget. It is much less than that. It involves genuine cuts, which have already been announced, and have created the same sort of crisis in South Glamorgan that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned have arisen in respect of education cutbacks in Mid-Glamorgan.
  In future years, I would like to see local government finance civil servants and county and district treasurers get together and give evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs or some other suitable body, with assistance from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and other local government finance experts. Right hon. and hon. Members could still engage in arguments about politics, but not about figures. It ought to be possible for finance experts to agree between themselves the expected cost in 1992 of providing the same services available in 1991. Then we as politicians have only to come in and put the cream on the coffee. We can say that if an authority wants to expand services in certain areas it will cost a certain amount extra, on top of the 8·5 or the 7·9 or the 9·8 or whatever figure the finance experts tell us will give us the same basket of services next year as we are already getting this year, our base line which we all know about.
  At the moment we are wasting time on a colossal scale in the House every year by going through this charade and being unable to agree because, as the Secretary of State has confirmed, he cannot agree with the county councils and their treasurers and with the district councils and their treasurers on whether we can accurately say what the cost will be, allowing for inflation and also for the particular way in which increments in teachers' pay and so on impact on a labour-intensive service such as local government. We could then reduce our argument to the politics of the situation, whether the public really wanted to pay for extra services, the same services, or lower services. That is what we should be arguing about. I would like the Under-Secretary of State to give some attention to that in his reply.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: The best thing about this settlement is that it is the last from a Conservative Secretary of State for a long time to come. It has been memorable for the way in which the "demob happy" Tory twins of Clwyd launched their devastating attacks on 13 years of Conservative rule and what the Conservatives have done to undermine local democracy in Wales. It is ironic that the two Conservative Members who are standing down at the election now appear to support the policies of the Welsh Labour party.
  For 13 years the Conservatives have used their position to lay waste local government and public services in Wales. They have underfunded local government. They have put 70,000 on the waiting lists, and condemned families to the horrors of homelessness. They have created a crisis in social services, with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary pontificating on what others should do while neglecting to offer real help and encouragement to those who have to
  1072
  work with the most neglected and difficult children in our society. While cutting the real value of pensions, they have transferred the responsibility for the care of the elderly from central to local government. They have paid scant regard to the increasing number of elderly people in Wales and have simply failed to provide the resources to match the need.
  They have left us a heritage of crumbling schools, stolen our colleges from us and undermined the development of tertiary colleges in Wales in a callous and cavalier manner which has shocked the dedicated councillors and teachers who have shown love and care for our places of education —the Parliamentary Under-Secretary appears to be laughing at the education of children in Wales—and for the young people who need them so desperately.
  That is the record, and the settlement that we are debating today is no different. The districts needed 11 per cent. to maintain vital services; they are being given just over 5 per cent. The Government's SSAs for the Welsh districts amount to £7 million below this year's budgets, and that with councils using £17 million of their own reserves. For 13 years the Government have imposed new duties on Welsh councils without giving them enough money to carry out those duties.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave the example of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is a fine thing to want better standards of refuse disposal, street cleaning, pest control and so on, but the shortage of cash is causing problems and distortions. Anyone who has examined the problems of waste disposal in south Wales knows that we have a crisis on our hands which needs a partnership between the Welsh Office and local government, not a diktat from on high or simple percentages on the previous year.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that care in the community is not a cheap option. We have a terrible shortage of day care facilities for the mentally ill, for adults with learning difficulties, for people with Alzheimer's disease and for their carers, who shoulder such an enormous and painful burden. How can councils pick up that burden when the Government have slashed the proportion that they give towards the cost of local services? Where is the cash needed to create facilities, training for employment and job opportunities for the mentally disabled?
  In my own county of South Glamorgan I have great sympathy for councillors who have had to slash £4 million to get within the Minister's unrealistic limits. The cuts have been painful. For instance, they have had to cut money for part-time youth centres. There is a proven link, which I would have thought the Secretary of State himself, in view of his past, would be concerned about, between youth provision and success in combating the rise in crime among young people.
  I accuse Welsh Office Ministers of creating conditions in which crime can flourish in many of our communities, which already have pain enough to bear. I cannot fault the local councillors, who have had to give priority to keeping the schools budget intact, but I can condemn the Welsh Office Ministers who have confronted them with such a painful dilemma.
  During the years of the oil revenue bonanza, the Government have failed to provide the cash that is needed to bring our schools up to standard. Our councillors have tried desperately to keep up with the need. This year, South Glamorgan has had to cut the building maintenance

  1073
  programme for schools by 40 per cent.—£1·5 million—to meet the Government's unrealistic target and I know that other authorities throughout Wales have experienced the same problem. The Welsh Office Ministers must carry the can for that pain, too.
  As several of my hon. Friends have mentioned, the Secretary of State came out with a further devastating announcement this week to add to all that pain. He announced bad news as if he were Father Christmas or the tooth fairy. Let me spell it out. After the news of the teachers' settlement, the Secretary of State has refined his figures and has tried to say that he is being generous. That is a cruel hoax, which might be described outside this place —without fear of legal action—as misrepresentation.
  In South Glamorgan, the cost of the teachers' pay award is £1·09 million, but the Secretary of State has increased the SSA by only £540,000. The extra cash that he has provided is even less—only £531,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and others have given the equivalent figures for their local authorities.
  That means that councillors who have spent months struggling to get within their SSA suddenly have to find an extra £459,000 in cash terms, and £450,000 in terms of cuts, just to stay within that SSA. Until this week, they were succeeding; now, only 24 hours ahead of the rate-setting meeting, the Secretary of State has told them to pull another £450,000 out of thin air. That is absurd and it is irresponsible of the Secretary of State.
  I want the Minister to give three undertakings to all the hon. Members who have raised that point tonight. l want him, first, to promise to reconsider the cash allocation; secondly, to promise to reconsider the SSAs and set a reasonable level; and, thirdly, to promise to discount the new cash gap when considering whether to impose a poll tax cap. Only a cynical and irresponsible Minister would fail to give a positive response to all three requests.
  Even before that piece of news, councils were plagued by the complexity, rigidity and plain unfairness of the grant system—the so-called SSAs. This is a lottery without sense or logic. Six districts have been allowed increases that would plunge them into financial difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) says that his council would suffer a decrease in real terms, and the Council of Welsh Districts has begged the Welsh Office for a safety net or loss limiter to guard against such wild variations.
  As the place names show, the effect of the Government's system fall most heavily on our most needy areas, particularly in the valleys. The Government boast about home improvement grants, yet they are reducing the contribution to councils from 90 to 75 per cent., which means an impact on poll tax bills that one estimate puts at some £2 or £3. That is a hidden and dishonest cut for local authorities to bear.
  A number of hon. Members have referred to the money provided for economic development, which has suffered a 30 per cent. cut in two years. A number of our local authorities have an outstanding record in securing inward investment. A Secretary of State who seeks praise for his own efforts in that regard should not only acknowledge their success but give them the tools for the job along with the generous praise.
  The shadow of the poll tax falls over this settlement. Unlike the Government, the Minister who will wind up the debate still supports the poll tax: I understand from
  1074
  sedentary remarks that he made earlier that he would like to retain it. Will he be honest with the House and the people of Wales tonight?
  We have had £100 million wasted and lost to Wales. There have been massive collection problems, the amount uncollected being £17 million. The number of summonses issued is 500,000, and there has been an enormous waste of time and effort for the very people who told the Conservative party that the poll tax would not work.
  Even after all the furore of the poll tax, the Government are providing inadequate funds to provide for their new and unfair council tax. The amount being provided for capital costs is inadequate, and for revenue expenditure the provision is £6 million instead of the necessary £8 million. Why, in the name of fair play, should Welsh councils and the people who live in their areas have to pay yet again for the Conservative party's blunders and for the refusal of Ministers to listen to common sense from Opposition Members, who understand and have practical experience of local government finance? Not only have the Government failed to grapple with the whole question of local government finance in Wales but Conservative Ministers have plunged our councils into chaos and wasted millions of pounds, and have then had the cheek to lecture us about tax.
  In contrast, Welsh councils have yet again this year proved responsible, spending 1·8 per cent. less than their English counterparts despite 13 years' grievous suffering under the Government. But even now the Conservatives plan more obstacles and burdens for the people of Wales. Those of us who were working until five o'clock this morning in the Committee dealing with the Local Government Bill know that only too well. In a few months' time, thank goodness, a Labour Government will give new meaning to local government in Wales and fresh help to local councils and to those who rely on and enjoy their services.
  10.11 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) would find it hard to believe that the Government are increasing by 8·7 per cent. the total spending assessment for next year and that the provision will be 23 per cent. more than it was in 1990–91. Before the implementation of the £140 general reduction, the increase over two years was 35 per cent. Anyone listening to the hon. Gentleman would find it hard to believe that the average SSA increases of 8·7 per cent. for district and 8·1 per cent. for counties in the coming year will mean that assessments have increased by one quarter in just two years. Nor would anyone know that the Labour party, when it was in power, far from increasing local government expenditure in Wales, reduced it year after year. In 1976–77 provision went down by 4 per cent., the following year the reduction was 8 per cent., the year after it was 4 per cent., and then the party was thrown out of office.
  This is the sort of nonsense that we are getting from the Labour party. A party that reduced local government spending complains that the present Government have increased spending by more than the rate of inflation and have made sure that the charge payers in Wales will pay

  1075
  only 7 per cent. of the total bill for local government services across the board. Anyone listening to Opposition Members would not know that.
  Nor have the Opposition made clear their policies on spending. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), in a speech lasting about 25 minutes, did not once tell the House what level of local government spending would be acceptable to Labour. All we heard from the hon. Gentleman was how his party would spend more every year. Every year at this time the hon. Gentleman makes the same speech about how his party would spend more, about how the local authorities in Wales are hard done by. Not once has he told the House how much more he would allow those local authorities to spend if he were the Secretary of State. He has not said what level of community charge would be acceptable to a Labour Government. We never hear from the Labour party what its real plans are. Those of us who watch the shadow Secretary of State's progress round Wales know that every day another spending promise is made in the Welsh press and on Welsh television. Not once have we been given the prices to go with the menu. That is the Labour party when it comes to local government expenditure in Wales.
  We should spend some time warning the people of Wales what the Labour party, if it ever came to power, would mean for local government. First, it would mean higher spending by local authorities. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that his party planned to increase the proportion of council spending met by the community charge payers in England from 14 per cent. to 20 per cent. If the same figures applied in Wales, that would result in a jump from 7 per cent. to 20 per cent. The Labour party has never told us what its figures would be.
  Only a few weeks ago the deputy leader of the Labour party said in the Local Government Chronicle:
  "I promise that when Labour is back in government … you will certainly get more than you receive now."
  Again we were not told by the deputy leader what the promises would mean. The simple fact is that we do not get any honesty whatsover from the Labour party about its spending plans or its policies, or what its policies would be for raising the necessary taxation.
  In 1980 the Labour party said that the rates were unjust. In 1985 the leader of the Labour-controlled Association of London Authorities said:
  "Rates over the years have become widely detested both by those who have to pay them and those who have to defend raising them."
  In 1990 the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that
  "Labour agrees that the rates system was flawed."
  But now we hear that the Labour party would bring back the rating system. The people of Wales need to know that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) says that they would be fair. The word "fair" has the same connotation, when talking about fair rates, as the word "democratic" had in the German Democratic Republic, or that "people" has in people's republics. It is a weasel word that has no connection whatsoever with its true meaning.
  The Labour party is already committed to bringing back the rating system with knobs on it. The Labour party would introduce four different factors for assessing rates: market price, rebuilding costs, maintenance and repair
  1076
  costs, and private rents. Of course, the Labour party has told nobody what sort of weighting factors there would be on any one of those four. In addition, the Labour party is committed to an annual rolling revaluation for every one of the 22 million domestic properties. When asked at a press conference about the cost of revaluing 20 million properties four times over, the hon. Member for Dagenham said, "I do not know." That is what we are getting from the Labour party time and time again. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bennett: No. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Mr. Bennett: There he goes. The hon. Gentleman has just come in. He has not been present.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister in order? All that he has done so far is to attack the Labour party's policies. The debate is about the revenue support grant for Wales. I know that the Conservative party is preparing to be in opposition and that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is preparing to be out of work after the election, but is this in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is quite in order to compare policies. It is happening in the House all the time.
  Mr. Bennett: Had the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) been here, he would have heard silence from Labour party Members about their policies. I have to fill that vacuum by telling the people of Wales what the Labour party's policies are.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bennett: No.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who had so much fun in attacking this side of the House, said at this Dispatch Box when he was a Minister:
  "I would go further and call attention to the main anomolies inherent in the rating system."—[Official Report, 5 July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 848.]
  He now wants to bring back that very system which, when he was a Minister, he was committed to getting rid of.
  In addition, the Labour party wants to make sure that council tax payers will pay more. It wants to abolish compulsory competitive tendering and to stop what it calls the privatisation of essential public services. The hon. Member for Brightside said that at the Labour party conference. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) said, the Labour party wants to introduce a Welsh assembly, something which the Leader of the Opposition was opposed to in 1974 and in 1978. Now he is in favour of it. The cost to the Welsh people of a Mickey Mouse assembly in Cardiff would be £50 million. It would duplicate the work done by this House and would ensure that Opposition Members became second class citizens in this House.
  We have also heard that the Labour party is against —[Interruption.] That is one of the things that it does not like. That is why Labour Members stand up and shout, but they will not achieve their objective.

  1077
  The hon. Member for Dagenham said:
  "I shall be precise. There will be no provision for capping in any legislation that we introduce."—[Official Report, 6 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 472.]
  The hon. Gentleman also said:
  "I promise that when Labour is back in government the coercive element in the local government grant will be removed. You may not get as much from a Labour Chancellor as you want. But you will certainly get more than you receive now."
  On 15 February 1991 in The New Statesman and Society, when asked whether he would allow councils to increase their annual rates by 60 per cent., the hon. Member for Dagenham said:
  "I don't see, even then, that we would want to come in and cap."
  That is the prospect for the people of Wales if the Labour party ever came to power. The Opposition's policy would be spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax. There would be no Government controls. Opposition Members do not want to hear this. They want to shout it down because they know that it will be electorally unpopular.
  Another policy that the Labour party has up its sleeve is one specifically made for business. Instead of a national business rate, whereby we protect businesses by ensuring that there cannot be an increase of more than the rate of inflation, the Labour party wants to take away the national business rate and give control back to the local authorities. The first thing that would happen, as in the old days, is that the local authorities would target businesses for extra taxation in order to finance their high spending plans. Even looking at the first two years of the non-domestic rate, if it had been based on the spending plans of local authorities in Wales, the rate would have been 3p higher than it will be this year as a result of Government controls. The Opposition do not want to hear that because we are pointing out the difference between what they say here and what is in their policy documents and what it will mean for the domestic charge payer and the business charge payer.
  We are also told, in the words of the hon. Member for Dagenham, that the Labour party rebate system would "pauperise millions of people". It will be of great interest to the people of Wales to know that a Labour rebate system will make it difficult for many of those who are currently able to claim rebates as of right. They would be losers under the Labour party's policy
  We have heard that the Labour party wants regional government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I put the Question, I should inform the House that some hon. Members may find it a little difficult to get to the Lobbies. Access is available, but in view of the difficulties, I propose to add five minutes to the Division.
  It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 February].
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 132.

  Division No. 80]

  [10.22 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Allason, Rupert

  Ashby, David

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Robert

  Amos, Alan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arbuthnot, James

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  1078

  Beggs, Roy

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knox, David

  Benyon, W.

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Latham, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  McCrea, Rev William

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

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

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Mans, Keith

  Conway, Derek

  Marland, Paul

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Curry, David

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Eggar, Tim

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Mills, Iain

  Evennett, David

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Fallon, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Farr, Sir John

  Moate, Roger

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Franks, Cecil

  Nelson, Antony

  Gale, Roger

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Norris, Steve

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Page, Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Patnick, Irvine

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Pawsey, James

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Gregory, Conal

  Porter, Barry(Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Grist, Ian

  Price, Sir David

  Ground, Patrick

  Raffan, Keith

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Rhodes James, Sir Robert

  Hague, William

  Riddick, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hannam, Sir John

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

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

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Harris, David

  Rowe, Andrew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Hill, James

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hind, Kenneth

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Stern, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Irvine, Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jack, Michael

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Jackson, Robert

  Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

  Janman, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick Norwich N)

  Jessel, Toby

  Thurnham, Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Tracey, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Tredinnick, David

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Tripper, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  1079

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Waller, Gary

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Wood, Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Yeo, Tim

  Watts, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Wheeler, Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Nicholas Baker and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Foster, Derek

  Anderson, Donald

  Foulkes, George

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Godma Dr Norman A.

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Battle, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hain, Peter

  Benton, Joseph

  Hardy, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Haynes, Frank

  Boyes, Roland

  Hinchliffe, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Howarth, Geroge (Knowsley N)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Howells, Geraint

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoyle, Doug

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Ingram, Adam

  Clelland, David

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Crowther, Stan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cryer, Bob

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cummings, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lamond, James

  Darling, Alistair

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leighton, Ron

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Livsey, Richard

  Dewar, Donald

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dixon, Don

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Doran, Frank

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  McAllion, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Edwards, Huw

  McCartney, Ian

  Enright, Derek

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Fearn, Ronald

  McMaster, Gordon

  1080

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

  Marek, Dr John

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, J.P. (Value of Glam)

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Stephen, Nicol

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Strang, Gavin

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Turner, Dennis

  Murphy, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Nellist, Dave

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  O'Brien, William

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wigley,Dafydd

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Redmond, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Reid, Dr John

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Noes;

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Eric Illsley and

  Rooney, Terence

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Report 1992–93 (Revised) (House of Commons Paper No. 247), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motions.
  Resolved,
  That the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Distribution Report (No. 4) (House of Commons Paper No. 241), a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Distribution of Non-Domestic Rates (Relevant Population) Report for Wales (No. 3) (House of Commons Paper No. 153), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

  Horticulture
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]
  10.38 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I am grateful for the opportunity of initiating an Adjournment debate on horticulture, a subject in which I take a great interest. In addition to my constituency concerns, I am also chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench horticulture committee and parliamentary adviser to the Horticultural Trades Association, a fact that appears in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Since this subject was last debated, the Government have made positive moves to help horticulture. 1 have been approached by many growers and asked to express their gratitude. The Government's commitment of £25 million for the restructuring of Horticulture Research International has been warmly received, as has the recent announcement of a £5 million allocation to improve horticultural marketing through existing and new producer groups. Those are welcome and positive signs for the industry, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to look for further ways to assist horticulture.
  Last year was not a good year for the industry. We saw a combination of a £51 million decline in the value of horticultural production and rises in costs and overheads. With the coming of the free market at the beginning of 1992, it is even more important that steps are taken now to enable the horticultural industry to prepare itself for the challenges of a fair and even market. The Government can assist in a number of ways.
  One such way is a more equitable writing-down allowance for specialist horticultural buildings. The sophisticated equipment involved has a short working life and should therefore have a short writing-down period. I understand that progress is being made, and I should be grateful for an indication of the timing and likely outcome of those negotiations.
  Another is the requirement for local planning authorities to be made aware of the needs of horticulture when considering redevelopment proposals. That is particularly necessary when development is required to meet the needs of new health regulations or the demand for improved standards from supermarkets or other customers.
  The removal of all barriers to free trade within the European Community raises other potential problems. There is already a considerable trade in plant material within the Community, and I welcome the opportunities that further deregulation will bring. However, there is stil concern over Community plant health legislation. Britain is entering that arena, having already established a quality reputation because we enjoy one of the highest plant health regimes in Europe. It is essential that that is not diluted in any way.
  The British horticultural trade strongly supports the Commission's proposals relating to plant health. They support both the registration of growers and the regular inspection of premises. They are happy that plants should be inspected at the point of production, rather than at national borders, and they like the idea of plants that are moving beyond a certain local zone carrying a passport.
  1082
  One would hope, incidentally, that that would be in the form of a label showing details of the source, inspection and validity of registration.
  In theory, all those measures will preserve the existing high plant health standards in the United Kingdom. The problem arises in the practical implementation of regulations. It is essential that other countries are not allowed to treat lightly the necessary details of inspection, registration and implementation of plant passports.
  That raises a number of points. First, assuming that growers will be licensed to issue their own passports after inspection, we need to ensure that there are sufficient inspectors to police the standards set. I understand that, although there are to be national inspectors, only four inspectors are proposed from the Community. Can my hon. Friend give some assurance that standards will be maintained throughout the Community?
  Secondly, I believe that there will be charges for inspections. How will my hon. Friend ensure that certain Governments do not subsidise those charges, thereby putting British growers at a competitive disadvantage?
  I am also concerned that too much detail is being left to member states. Although I welcome that in many other areas of Community activity, we must be extremely careful in this instance. Plant material has many problems that are not shared by inanimate objects. It is vital that all member states adhere to the highest health standards, as determined by the Community. Failure to do so could lead to the importation of diseased plant stock, which could devastate our horticultural industry, gardens and parks. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on how the Community proposes to maintain those standards.
  Finally, it is important to get the balance right between an effective system and one that can operate with the minimum of bureaucracy. We do not want to see growers burdened with extensive and expensive form-filling. We must ensure that passports are such that they can be incorporated into existing commercial labels: accepted botanical and horticultural systems are used when naming plants; and costs are clearly apportioned in the regulations.
  I realise that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been very firm and supportive on these measures during the negotiations. I urge that the Minister continues to insist on the highest health standards with the lowest bureaucratic fuss.
  The changes taking place in eastern Europe affect all parts of our lives, including horticulture. One issue of relevance to the industry is the price set under the association agreements for soft fruit grown in eastern Europe. It is important that these are not set at below realistic commercial levels. To do so would be to the detriment of fruit growers both in the east and in the European Community. I know that my hon. Friend has fought hard on that issue, and I hope that he will continue to be firm in negotiations and resist the erroneous argument that artificially low prices would benefit producers. It is simply not true.
  There are a number of domestic matters that are of concern to a large sector of the industry. One such is spray irrigation for container plants. It seems clear that, in this sector, legislation has not kept in line with advances in horticultural production technique. Spray irrigation is controlled by the Water Resources Act 1963 and the subsequent Spray Irrigation (Definition) Order 1965. Those regulations took into account the need of crops that

  1083
  were not growing out in open fields and would be unable to survive without artificial irrigation. In those days, that meant plants under cover—for example, in greenhouses or under cloches. The order exempted those crop-growing methods from the regulations controlling the level of irrigation.
  Since the late 1960s, we have seen the growth of container production, which has revolutionised the United Kingdom's nursery stock industry. Currently, £200 million-worth of container plants are produced each year. Those plants are separated from the soil by their containers. Unlike field-grown crops, they cannot draw moisture from the ground. Also, unlike field-grown crops, if they do not receive adequate irrigation every 24 hours during hot weather, they are certain to die quickly.
  For the purpose of the 1965 Act, it is clear that container plants fall into the category of protected crops that cannot survive without artificial irrigation. The only reason why the regulations do not already take account of container production is that it was not a factor at the time. I find it hard to believe that there are any reasons not to update these regulations, but if there are, I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could explain them. If not, it is a simple matter to amend the regulations, and I would ask my hon. Friend to do so in time for the 1992 growing season, especially given the prolonged dry season that we are currently experiencing.
  The growth in container production is one of the factors affecting the amount of peat used for horticultural purposes. Peat plays a major role in all three main areas of horticulture in the United Kingdom—first, in the retail market, where 1 million cu m are used each year for soil improvement, potting and mulching. Secondly, the amenity market makes use of 300,000 cu m per annum, mainly for soil improvement before landscape planting. Finally, in professional horticulture, growers use between 800,000 and 1·2 million cu m of peat. Those amounts total 2·5 million cu m of peat per year. Putting that into perspective, the total world consumption of peat—mainly for fuel and horticulture—is about 525 million cu m per annum.
  British horticulture therefore accounts for under half of 1 per cent. of the total world peat consumption. Horticulture is well aware, however, of the need to reduce peat usage in order to protect habitats not only in Britain but throughout the world. It is taking steps to find alternative sustainable compounds, looking at the three main sectors that I mentioned earlier. In the retail and amenity sectors, peat is used as a soil conditioner and for aesthetic purposes. It is proving far easier to find substitutes for those sectors than for commercial plant production.
  For such growers, peat has a number of unique properties which are vital for stock production: it is disease-free; it contains no nutrients, allowing the grower to add these himself to provide a uniform media, which can be adjusted to suit different plants and growing locations; its air-water relationship provides the ideal balance for root growth; and it has ideal water-holding and transfer characteristics. The highly sophisticated peat-based composts necessary for professional modern horticultural production have taken more than 40 years to
  1084
  develop. It is extremely difficult to find suitable alternatives overnight, although significant moves are being made.
  Growers are increasingly using peat alternatives to dilute their composts. Some sectors of the industry, such as glasshouse tomato producers, have stopped using peat completely. But much more research still needs to be done into finding true substitutes for peat. The industry is looking at wood bark, coconut fibre, straw and even sewage sludge. All those potential alternatives—and a number of others—will require several more years of scientific trials before we can be assured that they are reliable and safe. The Horticultural Development Council, which is funded by the growers, is spending £100,000 over the next three years to research the issue. It is important to keep a balanced and realistic view of it.
  In the short term, reduction in the use of peat can be and is being made in domestic gardening and professional landscaping. To find a substitute for growers, though, is far more difficult and will take some time. Money is being spent on research, and I am sure that any further contribution that the Government might wish to make will be welcome. In the meantime, I ask my hon. Friend to give strong consideration to the detrimental effects on the economy and employment, particularly in rural communities, of any forced ban or reduction. The industry is working to address this problem, but the answer cannot be found overnight.
  Any speech on horticulture has to be wide-ranging to take account of the many activities that fall under its umbrella. I want, therefore, to say just a few words on the situation relating to nurseries that serve the forestry industry. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the disastrous effects of the 1988 Budget on forestry, and hence on many nurseries. It seems ludicrous that, at a time when our farmers are being urged to diversify and when the European Community is spending millions of pounds in subsidy, we should remove the financial incentive for forestry.
  Britain is a net importer of timber products. There was a trade deficit in this sector of over £5 billion last year, yet farmers are being paid to leave thousands of acres of land fallow that could be used for forestry.
  The 1988 Budget removed the tax allowances on the capital charge of setting up a new forestry enterprise. No other business is treated like that. It is clear that the promise of tax-free returns on felling many years in the future holds little attraction to the cash-starved landowner. Consider what has happened: before the 1988 Budget, new plantings totalled 25,000 hectares. Last season, this figure fell to just 10,000 hectares, of which commercial afforestation is unlikely to exceed 6,000 hectares.
  The collapse of the creation of new forests in the past three years has resulted in a rapid reduction in manpower and investment in new equipment for the industry. This has been particularly harmful in the upland areas, already struggling because of the agricultural downturn. The resulting and continuing depopulation will reduce the potential to increase afforestation in the future, should the Government wish to do so.
  It is not, however, just the lack of financial incentive that is presenting difficulties for the forestry industry. Potential investment is also deterred by the bureaucracy that surrounds the awarding of forestry grants, so vital to any planting. In particular, there is concern over the

  1085
  number and range of groups that are consulted before a decision is made by MAFF. Given the problems that exist in encouraging forestry planting, can my hon. Friend explain how the balance is struck between the views of environmental organisations and the need to promote forestry? Can he also explain what steps are being taken to streamline the system of awarding grants?
  I would urge that MAFF consider urgently what needs to be done to encourage greater participation in forestry, because the current system is obviously not working satisfactorily.
  The range of matters that I have raised tonight demonstrates the diversity of the horticultural industry, but horticulture embraces an even wider industry than that which I have described, and has interests that go far beyond those matters that are the responsibility of my hon. Friend's Ministry. Roles for other Departments, such as the Department of the Environment's influence on our parks, gardens and open spaces, are well known, but the decisions taken by others, such as the Departments of Employment, of Education and Science, and of Trade and Industry, can also affect horticulture. I hope that we can be assured that there is significant co-ordination of horticultural strategy.
  We need to ensure that the industry is given the most effective and productive support to help it to meet the challenges and opportunities that the future will bring. As I said earlier, much has been done. I am sure that horticulture can continue to count on the assistance and understanding of my hon. Friend's Ministry, and I look forward to further advances over the coming years.
  10.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) asked me a series of questions. She dealt with the depreciation of glasshouses, planning, plant health legislation in the Community, imports from eastern Europe, spray irrigation for container plants, peat and forestry. I shall try to cover as much of that ground as I can, and I shall answer her by letter on any matter that I do not reach in the time left to me tonight.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of tax allowances for specialist horticultural buildings. I know that inconsistency in treatment of capital allowances for glasshouses has been of considerable concern to the industry. I have raised this concern with the Treasury, which has agreed that an objective test would be attractive as a basis for determining relief due. It is not straightforward, because a considerable body of case law has to be taken into account. However, my officials have been working closely with the Treasury on the details, and we hope that we will have agreement soon.
  Planning policy guidance note 7 issued last month includes guidance to planning authorities on the revised planning controls on agricultural development which came into effect on 2 January. It emphasises the importance of an efficient and flexible agricultural industry and advises planning authorities to take full account of the operational needs of farm businesses, together with environmental considerations, in operating the new controls. Planning authorities are also specifically encouraged to adopt a positive approach generally
  1086
  towards development proposals which are designed, or necessary, to achieve compliance with new environmental, health and welfare legislation.
  On plant health, the twin objectives of maximum health standards and minimum bureaucratic burden will guide our policy in this sector in this crucial year, as they have in the past.
  We are seeking simple but effective ways to implement the broad framework agreed by the Agriculture Council in December 1991. On plant passports, we fought a long battle in the Council to get the right for the trade to attach their own passports, under inspectorate control, and I am glad to say that we were successful. We are expanding our plant health and seeds inspectorate accordingly. In practice, we are looking to enable producers to choose between incorporating the necessary information on their existing trade labels or, if it is commercially more convenient, attach a separate label. We are aware of the potential impact of the level of charges that we make on the competitivity of UK growers. No decisions have yet been taken.
  On imports, it is clear that the potential risk to the high plant health status that we enjoy lies overwhelmingly outside the Community. The present system of phytosanitary certificates for relevant third country material entering member states will continue. Inspections of these plants and plant products will occur when they enter the Community and plant passports will be issued as appropriate.
  There are a number of safeguards of United Kingdom growers in this. First, national inspectorates throughout the Community take their duties seriously, and I do not imagine that any of them would willingly allow a pest to be imported when it should not be there. Then, the Community has provided its own inspectorate, one of whose express tasks is to monitor work of inspectorates across the Community so that full confidence can be placed in them. Exchanges of information and techniques will play an important part in this work. Finally, we have the nature of the regime which the Community presents to third countries. As the EC harmonises the different national import regimes this year, it has the opportunity to take the best from each of them and adopt it for its own. We shall be busy this year making sure that that opportunity is grasped.
  One of the tasks of the EC's plant health inspectorate, will be to work with national inspectorates to ensure that inspections of domestic production and third country imports are on the same basis throughout the Community. Of the planned complement of 17 EC inspectors, it is intended that nine should be filled by national inspectors on temporary secondment. This movement between the national and Community inspectorates should help to reinforce the harmonisation process. [Interruption.]
  I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I spent two days in the Council sitting between the Portuguese and Belgian delegates, who have been determined to show that there is value in the tobacco regime, and that has led to my having to blow my nose.
  As regards imports of semi-processed soft fruit from eastern Europe, the United Kingdom Ministers' positive commitment to the legitimate interests of the soft fruit industry is not in doubt: few other issues are raised four times in a year in Councils of Ministers by a single member state.

  1087
  The Commission maintained safeguard action for 14 months on the criterion of preventing serious disruption of market; this provided some breathing space for longer-term arrangements. The initialled association agreements with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are due to come into force on 1 March and provide a satisfactory basis for market surveillance and, if necessary, control of imports. The situation in Yugoslavia does not allow for action at the moment.
  The Commission is responsible for arranging mechanisms involved in the trigger price system in association agreements. We have made it clear that these should be settled as soon as possible. Minimum prices are important, but so are other details such as speed of transmission of data and compliance with rules on price differentiation for different qualities. As I said in March last year, undercutting prices and failing to maintain market discipline does no good for either the United Kingdom or overseas producers.
  Structural measures are matters for the Commission. At the Agriculture Council which concluded yesterday, the Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, undertook to make structural proposals to help the particularly hard-hit Scottish raspberry industry by 1 April. The new group formation grants are designed precisely to help producers to work together in a more loosely knit fashion than under standard producer organisation rules.
  I come now to the question of spray irrigation of container-grown plants. We have consulted the National Rivers Authority about the effect that an exemption would have on water resources and other water users and the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, as any amendment to the 1965 order would be made jointly with those Departments. I am pleased to say that those consultations have now been completed and we intend to make an announcement in time for the coming season.
  On the question of spray irrigation generally, as hon. Members will be aware, we have not had much rain this winter and in some areas rivers and acquifers are at record low levels. Therefore, I urge all users of spray irrigation to use water wisely, review irrigation programmes, and water only when absolutely necessary. Unless it rains continually between now and May, which is unlikely because it is not the cricket season, it is likely that the N RA will have to impose some restrictions on spray irrigation in East Anglia. We have therefore revised our good irrigation practice leaflet which gives details of an early warning system on restrictions on spray irrigation. That will be distributed to all holders of spray irrigation abstraction licences in the N RA's Anglian region at the end of this month.
  I am aware of the importance of peat for some sectors of the horticultural industry. The Government made a commitment 18 months ago to examine the question of peat, and to look in particular at the environmental consequences of peat extraction. I welcome the positive action taken by the horticultural industry to encourage the examination and usage of peat alternatives wherever suitable—in particular, in retail and amenity sectors.
  For some major horticultural sectors there is still no suitable alternative available. My Department is funding research into the needs of plants from growing media and we shall be working closely with the Horticultural
  1088
  Development Council in taking results forward. That will inevitably take time. My aim now is to ensure that the United Kingdom horticultural industry can continue to have access to efficient and economic plant growth media.
  The Horticultural Development Council seminar on peat last year made it clear that substantial supplies of peat are available worldwide, and overseas competitors will continue to have access to them. The United Kingdom container and nursery sectors in particular have been successful in expanding their market and there is still considerable scope for further expansion here and overseas. We aim to ensure that United Kingdom growers are not disadvantaged, and can continue to compete with overseas producers on fair and equal terms.
  We have made important changes to the support arrangements for forestry, but we have not removed the financial incentive. Public confidence in special forestry tax reliefs as an appropriate instrument for encouraging new planting had all but disappeared by 1988. That is why we changed to a grants-only approach. We are now targeting taxpayers' money in a more open, acceptable, and effective way, in order to deliver a wide range of public benefits.
  My hon. Friend mentioned a figure 25,000 hectares for private sector planting in 1988, but that was when new planting by the private sector was at an all-time high. The average for the previous 20 years was just over 15,000 hectares. We must also remember that we reduced the top rate of income tax to 40 per cent. in the 1988 Budget, and that would inevitably have had an influence on potential forestry investors' decisions. Clearly the time had come for change.
  Of course the forestry industry has had to adjust to the new approach. Moreover, it has had to do so at a time when we have been experiencing a general downturn in the economy, and I am well aware that for some sectors, such as the nurserymen, the change has been a painful one. But the Government are not complacent about the levels of new planting. The woodland grant scheme was introduced in 1988 with substantial increases in grant levels. With our aim of encouraging more planting on better quality land, we have substantially increased the better land supplement under the woodland grant scheme from £200 per hectare to £400 per hectare for conifers, and £600 for broadleaves. We recently announced a special community woodland supplement of £950 per hectare to encourage the establishment of woodlands close to towns and cities. From 1 April woodland management grants will provide a contribution to the cost of maintaining and improving woodlands and forests. Also from 1 April the successor to the farm woodland scheme will be in place. The farm woodland premium scheme will have enhanced incentives to encourage farmers to establish woodlands on their farms. The new scheme will be easier to understand and simpler to administer. The simplification of bureaucracy is one of my hon. Friend's principal concerns.
  It is important that we remove any excessive bureaucracy that may act as a disincentive to farmers and others to plant trees. However, the planting of trees results in significant changes to the countryside, and we must ensure that the right decisions are taken. If our policies are to deliver social and environmental as well as economic benefits, it is essential that the views of the statutory bodies that represent the interests of local people, amenity and wildlife conservation are sought. The Forestry Commission is charged with ensuring that full account is taken of such interests.

  1089
  We aim at keeping bureaucracy to a minimum and the commission's forestry authority seeks to ensure that in the vast majority of cases consultations with other interests are completed within four weeks. There will inevitably be those that take longer, but that will be because they are sensitive cases deserving of extra special care—not because the system is necessarily wrong.
  It is important that we strike a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and those of the environment. The forestry commissioners have a statutory duty to endeavour to achieve such a balance, and the consultation procedures are an important element in that. They are backed up by regular dialogue between the commission and other Government Departments, including those responsible for agriculture and the environment, as well as with bodies representing environmental interests and those of the forestry industry intself.
  The reorganisation of the Forestry Commission from 1 April will enable its forestry authority arm to focus more
  1090
  clearly on private sector planting and thus be better placed to deliver the Government's forestry policies. I am confident that the measures that I have outlined, coupled with an improvement in the economy, will bring a rise in new planting activity.
  My hon. Friend covered a wide range of issues. I have endeavoured to respond as fully as I can. I know that my hon. Friend acknowledges that the Government continue to argue strongly the case for this important and innovative industry both in Brussels, where the necessary legislation will shortly come into force and where the final details of some elements have still to be agreed, and in the United Kingdom, where there are great opportunities in the leisure and other industries. I trust that I have given my hon. Friend some assistance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Golf Courses
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce regulations or issue advice to local councils, restricting the proliferation of golf courses on green belt in environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Yeo
  Advice on golf courses is contained in planning policy guidance notes 17 and 7 published in September 1991 and January 1992 respectively. These supplement the longstanding advice on development in green belts in planning policy guidance note 2. Golf courses should be located and designed to ensure harmony with the surrounding countryside and to conserve the natural environment. Local planning authorities should take special care when considering applications in green belts.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information asked for is not readily available. However, my Department has a number of computer links with other organisations. None of these is with the police national computer; nor are there any plans for such links. More than 100 systems hold personal information and are registered under the Data Protection Act.

  Council Tax (Information)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that council tax information, intended to be made public, cannot be combined with personalised information held in other publicly held information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The only council tax information to be publicly available will be the valuation list. This will contain only property information, such as the address and valuation band. It will contain no personal information, and will not be available for sale.

  Barkby Thorpe
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the inspectors report into the Barkby Thorpe, Leicester inquiry.
  506
  Mr. Yeo
  The inspector is preparing his report and will submit it to the Secretary of State as soon as possible. I shall ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy of the Secretary of State's decision when it is available.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cumulative poll tax charge for a person living in Nottinghamshire since its inception; and what is his estimate of the approximate cost per head of its collection.

  Mr. Key
  The aggregate of the headline community charges for 1990–91 and 1991–92 for Nottingham is £685. The cumulative cost per chargepayer charged to revenue account of preparation for and collection of the charge in 1989–90 to 1991–92 in Nottingham is estimated to be £28·20.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much has been spent by housing associations in Darlington since 1979; and how many units of housing this has provided.

  Mr. Yeo
  The distribution of resources to housing associations among local authority areas is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the corporation to reply direct to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested. A copy of the reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ozone Layer
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek a meeting of the Montreal protocol signatories to discuss the latest reports about the depletion of the ozone layer; what consideration he has given to an earlier phasing out of chlorofluorocarbons because of their known effect on the layer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional action he is taking to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the answer I gave yesterday, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) [Official Report column 430].

  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum concerning the financing of the proposed Victoria and Albert of the North in Bradford; what views have been expressed by the trustees over the availability of £8 million from the European regional development fund; when he intends to take a final decision on the application for city grant for the project; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has received representations on behalf of the Victoria and Albert museum about the possibility of a grant from the European regional development fund for the proposed Victoria and Albert of
  507
  the North at Listers Mill. There are a number of major requirements which would need to be met before such a project could be regarded as viable and eligible for ERDF support. These include the means of funding the £13 million non-grant capital cost of the scheme and the projected annual revenue deficit, the practicality of undertaking the works within the Bradford ERDF programme time scale and resources, and meeting public expenditure requirements.

  A city grant application for redevelopment of another part of the Listers Mill complex has also been submitted and is under consideration. A conditional grant offer of £10 million was made last year to give the parties time to assemble a credible development package.

  Housing (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will approve additional financial allocations to Bradford council to build homes for rent and to repair and improve council housing stock; and if he will increase improvement grant to improve private property in the district.

  Mr. Yeo
  Local authorities' housing investment programme—HIP—allocations for 1992–93 were announced on 16 December. Part of these resources, the housing annual capital guideline—is directed at meeting general needs in the authority, including the repair and improvement of its own stock. Our policy is well established that the building of new social housing is mainly the responsibility of housing associations, with local authorities assuming an enabling role.

  Authorities' HIP allocations also contain a guideline figure for resources for private sector renewal. Authorities may claim in excess of this figure, and are entitled to receive appropriate Exchequer contributions on the full sum. In addition, £30 million has been held back for 1992–93 to assist the authorities experiencing heavy demand for expenditure on mandatory grants, and Bradford will have an opportunity to bid for these resources in due course.

  Crawley Borough Council
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has decided to take in relation to Crawley borough council under part I of the Local Government Act 1988.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the responses that Crawley borough council has made to the notices under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 served on the authority on 29 July 1991 in relation to its failure to meet the specified financial objective in carrying out other catering work in 1989–90; on 9 October 1991 in relation to its failure to meet specified financial objective in carrying out vehicle maintenance work in 1990–91; and on 9 October 1991 in relation to its failure to meet the specified financial objective in carrying out refuse collection work 1990–91. He has decided to take no further action in relation to the authority's performance of other catering work. In relation to the its performance of the two other activities, he has today given the authority directions under section 14 of the 1988 Act, with the effect of requiring the authority to complete a retendering exercise for vehicle maintenance work by 1 October 1992, and to seek his 508
  consent by 1 July 1992 to any decision to reassign the work to the direct service organisation; and of requiring the authority to complete a retendering exercise for refuse collection work by 1 February 1993,and to seek his consent by 1 November 1992 to any decision to reassign the work to the direct service organisation.

  Somerset Levels
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the agreement to safeguard the nature conservation interest of Glasson Moss, Wedholme Flow, Thorne and Hatfield Moors and Shapwick Heath and Westhay Moor in the Somerset levels by Fisons plc and English Nature.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Peat has been extracted from most of these sites under planning permissions given in the 1940s and 1950s, and could legitimately have continued well into the next century. The agreement provides for all of Fisons' freehold interests in these sites to be handed over at no cost to English Nature for management of the nature conservation interest. These include some of the most valuable peat sites in England.

  Of the 8,000 acres involved, the 2,800 acres on which vegetation exists will be managed immediately by English Nature for nature conservation purposes and Fisons will assist them by blocking off drains and other measures to secure the hydrological integrity of the areas. Where lowland peatbog sites have already been affected by modern working, there is no conservation reason to prevent further extraction provided conditions for the eventual rehabilitation of the sites are met. It is for this reason that English Nature has agreed that peat extraction under licence from them may continue at most of the other sites—but on condition that this will only take place in ways that minimise the further effects on undisturbed peat and allow restoration when extraction ceases.

  As peat extraction is completed, leaving behind an average depth of a half metre of peat to aid regeneration, these areas will gradually be transferred to English Nature management, and Fisons will assist with restoration for conservation after-use. In addition current research funded by Fisons into peatland regeneration will continue. This will complement research undertaken by my own Department into this subject.

  This agreement is a considerable achievement. Taken together with the acquisition by the Nature Conservancy Council of the Fenns Whixall and Bettisfield Mosses, it demonstrates the positive steps being taken to conserve the major lowland peat bog sites in England.

  Peat Extraction
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he was consulted over the arrangement to extract peat from Glassan Moss, Wedholme Flow, Thame and Hatfield Moors, and Somerset Levels by Fisons plc and English Nature; and when he first knew of the arrangement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: I have been aware for some considerable time of the confidential negotiations between English Nature and Fisons plc. The final agreement, by which Glasson Moss, Wedholme Flow, Thorne and Hatfield Moors, and Shapwick Heath and Westhay Moor in the Somerset Levels would be handed over by Fisons at no cost to English Nature, was

  509
  reached over the Christmas period. The chairman and chief executive of English Nature briefed the Minister for the Environment and Countryside on 7 January.

TRANSPORT

  Merchant Vessels
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will detail the procedure for Government procurement of civilian merchant vessels.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Merchant shipping is normally procured for Government use by chartering on the commercial market through either the Government freight market representative on the Baltic Exchange, the Government freight agent, or other specialist ship brokers.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will name the broker responsible for chartering merchant vessels for the Government.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Merchant vessels are chartered through the Government freight market representative on the Baltic Exchange, presently Mr. Richard Bilton. The Ministry of Defence also charters vessels through the Government freight agent—Hogg Robinson (GFA) Ltd. —and through other specialist ship brokers.

  Government Assistance for Training Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the number of Merchant Navy officers who have upgraded their qualification under the Government assistance for training scheme for each of the years since it started.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of Merchant Navy officers who have upgraded their qualification under the GAFT scheme within each financial year since it started are given in the table.

  Financial year

  Merchant Navy Officers

  1988–89

  385

  1989–90

  448

  1990–91

  491

  1991–92

  1500

  1 Estimated

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the numbers of seafarers, recruited under the Government assistance for training scheme, trained on foreign flag vessels, including the flags of the Crown and dependent territories, specifying which flag, for each year since the scheme was started.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of seafarers recruited under the GAFT scheme within each financial year since it started are given in the table.

  Financial year

  Officer Cadets

  1988–89

  227

  1989–90

  413

  1990–91

  521

  1991–92

  1500

  1 Estimated

  510
  Funding is provided to individuals who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and who are eligible on nationality grounds to serve as master or chief engineer on a United Kingdom ship. While the Department assesses each trainees record on approved courses no central register is maintained of the ships on which they are employed.

  Coastguard Service
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many reviews of the coastguard service have been undertaken in the last 20 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Within the last 20 years there have been seven independent and three internal reviews of Her Majesty's coastguard covering all aspects of the organisation and including management, staffing-requirements, pay and grading-and resources.

  London Transport
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will indicate the salaries of(a) the chairman and (b) board members of London Transport for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Freeman
  The annual salaries of the chairman and board members of London Transport for 1990–91 and 1991–92 are as follows:

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  Chairman

  Mr. C. Wilfrid Newton

  100,000

  106,000

  Full-time Members

  Mr. John Telford Beasley

  75,000

  79,875

  Mr. Anthony Sheppeck

  74,000

  76,150

  Part-time Members

  Sir Neil Shields

  22,000

  28,000

  Mr. Oscar Roith

  11,000

  29,290

  Dr. Stephen Glaister

  8,250

  9,960

  Mr. Roy Thomas

  8,250

  8,790

  Mrs. Helen Robinson

  8,250

  8,790

  Mr. Keith Brown

  8,250

  8,790

  Mr. David Thompson

  6,725

  8,790

  Sir Alan Bailey

  6,725

  8,790

  Mr. J. Keith Davies

  6,725

  8,790

  Increases in salaries for 1991–92 include provision for increased time commitment by a number of board members.

  Roads, Leicester
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the tender secured by Travers Morgan to act as advisers on the proposed route of the Leicester eastern bypass was open to public competition.

  Mr. Chope
  Travers Morgan was appointed in the normal way, following a competition with other suitable consulting engineers drawn from the Department's approved list.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to bring into use the already completed dual carriageway section of the eastern district distributor road north of Goodwood road in Leicester.
  511
  Mr. Chope
  The eastern district distributor road is a local road for which Leicestershire county council, as the highway authority, is responsible.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, before proceeding with the scheme to provide a Leicester eastern bypass, the views of the county council were sought.

  Mr. Chope
  No. If a viable scheme is identified the county council, and others, will have the opportunity to comment on the proposals at public consultation stage, before any final decision is taken to proceed with the project.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish details of the contract with Travers Morgan to act as advisers on the route of a Leicester eastern bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  Travers Morgan was commissioned under the Department's standard terms of engagement for highway consultancy commissions. As the contract document contains commercially sensitive information on fees and staff packages proposed by the firm and accepted by the Department, it is not the Department's policy to publish this information.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects the eastern district distributor road with the link to Oadby on the A6 to be completed;

  (2) what is the daily traffic flow both ways on the eastern district distributor road in Leicester where it enters the borough at Oadby on the A6;

  (3) if houses built by the city council on the Goodwood road part of the distributor road network in Leicester are to be demolished to enable dual carriageway construction to be completed;

  (4) what is the present traffic flow on the distributor road network in Leicester; and by how much he estimates this will increase with the demolition of the houses in Goodwood road.

  Mr. Chope
  These are not matters for my Department. The eastern district distributor is a local road for which Leicestershire county council, as the highway authority, is responsible.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will terminate the arrangement made by his Department to appoint Travers Morgan as consultants for a Leicester eastern bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account was taken of the work Travers Morgan had already performed for the Co-operative Wholesale Society, Manchester, in planning a business park and industrial estate and road network at the adjacent Stretton Magna when the tender for the Leicester eastern bypass was secured by them.

  Mr. Chope
  None. A condition of Travers Morgan's appointment for the Leicester eastern bypass commission was that it relinquished any further involvement in the Stretton Magna project. This it has done.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to proceed with 512
  any consideration of a Leicester eastern bypass until the eastern district distributor road network has been completed at Oadby and a traffic pattern has emerged.

  Mr. Chope
  No. The two roads would serve different functions. The Leicester eastern bypass would cater for long-distance trunk road traffic and provide continuity of the trunk road network around the city of Leicester; the county council's distributor road is to serve local traffic needs and improve the distribution of traffic within the city.

  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment was made of the views of the Harborough district council before proceeding with a Leicester eastern bypass.

  Mr. Chope
  None. If our preliminary investigations identify a viable scheme, Harborough district council will have the opportunity to comment on the scheme at public consultation stage and before any final decision is taken to proceed with the project.

  British Rail (Wheelchairs)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last approved new British Rail rolling stock that was inaccessible to wheelchair users.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is currently no statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to approve new British Rail rolling stock. Powers are being sought in the Transport and Works Bill currently before the House. Modern rolling stock approved by HM railway inspectorate under voluntary arrangements with British Rail, since 1989, is accessible to wheelchair users.

  New Roads
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy not to enter into schemes to design and build new roads without prior consultation with the hon. Members and borough and district councils involved.

  Mr. Chope
  Hon. Members and borough and district councils will have the opportunity to comment on schemes after viable options have been identified, at public consultation stage.

  Departmental Achievements (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in north Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The expenditure by my Department on road construction and maintenance in North Yorkshire for the financial year 1991–92 to date is £22 million.

  Progress on the national road programme in North Yorkshire in 1991 has included the opening of the Al Gatenby lane junction and the A65 Draughton bypass.

  The transport supplementary grant allocated to North Yorkshire in 1991–92 was £6·1 million. The annual capital guideline for roads and parking was £6·6 million. Supplementary credit approvals of £2·7 million included provision for the urban traffic control system in York.
  513
  Information on other transport expenditure and achievements, and comparable figures for the period between June 1979 and May 1980, are not available in the form requested.

  Exeter Bypass
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to receive the report from Acer Consultants on the proposal to bypass Exeter to the north and west.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Later this month.

DEFENCE

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the amount of retired pay receivable by a lieutenant-colonel promoted from the ranks retiring respectively(a) before and (b) after 1 April 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For a late-entry lieutenant colonel with 34 years reckonable service the amounts of retired pay are as follows:

  Date of retirement

  Original award £ per annum

  Current retired pay £ per annum

  31 March 1988

  11,105

  14,033

  1 April 1988

  14,185

  17,925

  Since 1 April 1988 late-entrant lieutenant-colonels have been paid on the officers main scale as opposed to the lower rates previously in issue. They also qualify for increased pension entitlements. There are no plans to change pension entitlements retrospectively.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to increase the retired pay of majors and lieutenant-colonels promoted from the ranks who retired before 1 April 1988 so that they are more in line with the retired pay of those who retired after that date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The retired pay of majors promoted through the ranks is calculated on the same basis irrespective of the date of retirement. There are no plans for retrospective changes to the pension entitlement of late-entry lieutenant-colonels.

  Tugs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 28 January,Official Report, column 526, to the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) which tugs are to be replaced by the two new tugs ordered; whether any further tugs will be required oil the full entry into service of Vanguard class submarines; what is their nominal bollard pull; and if a decision has been made on their names.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The names for the new tugs are Impetus and Impulse, and the nominal bollard pull is 36 tonnes. These tugs will not replace specific existing tugs. The size and composition of the marine services vessels changes with the overall size and deployment of the fleet and the need to replace older vessels as they come to the end of their economic lives.

  AOR1RFA Fort Victoria
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the AOR1RFA Fort Victoria, being built at Harland and Wolff, to be delivered to the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  On the basis of the shipbuilder's latest programme for completion, we expect to take delivery of the ship by the end of the year.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many quality assurance staff he expects to be relocated at Defence Research Agency sites at(a) Fort Halstead, (b) Chertsey, (c) Farnborough and (d) Pyestock; and how many are likely to face redundancy.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Many of the technical and scientific staff are expected to move with their tasks. Approximately 150 quality assurance technical posts are planned to be relocated at Fort Halstead and a further 200 technical posts in total to Farnborough, Pyestock and Chertsey. The distribution of posts between the latter sites is not yet finalised. In addition, a number of non-technical posts in support of quality assurance activities will be required at the above locations. We will do our best to minimise redundancies but, regrettably, it is not possible to guarantee that there will be none. The trade unions are being consulted in the normal way.

  Purple Warrior Exercises
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the vessels, including details of country of registration, used in the Purple Warrior exercises.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The last tri-service exercise which required the charter of commercial shipping was Purple Warrior in November 1987. The ships that took part were as follows:

  Name

  Flag

  Dana Regina

  Danish

  Tor Scandinavia

  Danish

  Hamburg

  Bahamas

  Norrona

  Faroe Islands

  Viking Viscount

  British

  Mercandian Atlantic

  Danish

  St. Magnus

  FRG

  Gabriela Wehr

  FRG

  Mercandian Diplomat

  Danish

  Condock 1

  FRG

  Condock 3

  FRG

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future command of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The command of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is to be simplified. The commander in chief, fleet, will in future exercise full command of the RFA in peace as well as war, making him responsible for ensuring that the RFA maintains the high levels of operational performance required to operate effectively in the front line in close support of warships. He will be supported by a senior RFA officer and a staff of RFA and other civilian personnel.
  515
  The RFA will remain a civilian organisation and these changes will not affect the conditions of service of RFA personnel. RFA vessels will continue to wear the blue ensign and will be manned by Merchant Navy officers and ratings. Responsibility for such issues as pay, conditions of service, recruitment and initial training will remain with the chief of fleet support and be discharged on his behalf by the director general of supplies and transport (naval).

  It is planned to implement these changes by April 1993 and there will be full consultation with the trade unions involved. The new command arrangements will ensure that the RFA continues to make the vital contribution to our overall defence effort of which its personnel are rightly proud.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United Nations Peace Keeping
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom will make the payment currently owed to the United Nations for special peace-keeping activities.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Kingdom makes its assessed payments for any United Nations peacekeeping operations within 30 days of receiving the request from the United Nations. The only exceptions are for the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon and the United Nations
  Disengagement Observer Force where we offset part of our assessed payment against the logistic support we provide. The adjustment for this does not take place until the end of a mandate period.

  President de Klerk
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting with President de Klerk and the Minister of State at the Foreign Office.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I had a useful and constructive meeting with President de Klerk on 20 January. The President explained his proposals for a new constitution and transitional arrangements and he emphasised South Africa's urgent need for economic development. I emphasised our support for the CODESA process and for economic growth in South Africa.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Back Payments
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) claims have been received and (b) payments made in respect of claims for back payments

  Table 1—Single Person

  Weekly Retirement Pension (RP)

  Gross Average Weekly Earnings (GAWE)

  Net Average Weekly Earnings (NAWE)

  RP as Percentage of GAWE

  RP as percentage of NAWE

  November 1968

  4·50

  23·25

  17·10

  19·4

  26·3

  November 1978

  19·50

  87·40

  60·30

  22·3

  32·3

  November 1979

  23·30

  103·60

  73·20

  22·5

  31·8

  November 1980

  27·15

  118·60

  82·90

  22·9

  32·8

  November 1981

  29·60

  129·50

  88·50

  22·9

  33·4

  November 1982

  32·85

  138·40

  93·80

  23·7

  35·0

  516
  under the additional requirement provisions for supplementary benefit at (i) the Lerwick and (ii) Kirkwall benefit agency offices in the last 12 months.

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

  Pensioners
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 December,Official Report, column 51, if he will republish the figures of pensioner incomes, distinguishing for married couples between the incomes of husbands and wives.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figures required on gross incomes net of retirement pensions and supplementary benefit/income support for husbands over state pension age, their wives and single people over state pension age are in the table.

  Thousands

  Husbands

  Wives

  Singles

  Up to £5

  220

  1,250

  650

  £5—£10

  180

  230

  350

  £10—£15

  220

  180

  370

  £15—£20

  190

  130

  430

  £20—£30

  330

  170

  950

  £30—£40

  230

  110

  400

  £40—£50

  150

  110

  230

  £50—£60

  70

  50

  150

  £60—£70

  100

  40

  120

  £70—£80

  90

  10

  130

  £80—£90

  60

  40

  110

  £90—£100

  60

  10

  70

  £100—£110

  70

  30

  60

  £110—£130

  100

  30

  120

  £130—£150

  80

  10

  60

  £150—£200

  130

  50

  100

  £200 and over

  220

  50

  130

  Note: All housing benefit paid to couples has been allocated to the husband.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1988.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the value of the state basic pension for a single person—category A—and a married couple—category A plus category B—as percentages of(a) gross average earnings and (b) average earnings net of income tax and national insurance contribution in 1968, 1978 and each year thereafter.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is in the tables.
  517

  Weekly Retirement Pension (RP)

  Gross Average Weekly Earnings (GAWE)

  Net Average Weekly Earnings (NAWE)

  RP as percentage of GAWE

  RP as percentage of NAWE

  November 1983

  34·05

  147·70

  100·40

  23·1

  33·9

  November 1984

  35·80

  159·60

  108·90

  22·4

  32·9

  November 1985

  38·30

  168·70

  115·60

  22·7

  33·1

  July 1986

  38·70

  176·70

  122·60

  21·9

  31·6

  April 1987

  39·50

  185·50

  131·30

  21·3

  30·1

  April 1988

  41·15

  200·60

  144·90

  20·5

  28·4

  April 1989

  43·60

  217·80

  157·20

  20·0

  27·7

  April 1990

  46·90

  237·20

  174·20

  19·8

  26·9

  April 1991

  52·00

  253·10

  186·50

  20·5

  27·9

  Notes: Gross Average Weekly Earnings (GAWE) and Net Average Weekly Earnings (NAWE) are for male manual workers. All dates are uprating dates except 1968 when there was no uprating.

  Table 2—Married couple

  Weekly retirement pension (RP) £

  Gross average weekly earnings (GAWE) £

  Net average weekly earnings (NAWE) £

  RP as percentage GAWE

  RP as percentage NAWE

  November 1968

  7·30

  23·25q

  18·05

  31·4

  40·4

  November 1978

  31·20

  87·40

  63·80

  35·7

  48·9

  November 1979

  37·30

  103·60

  77·00

  36·0

  48·4

  November 1980

  43·45

  118·60

  87·40

  36·6

  49·7

  November 1981

  47·35

  129·50

  93·00

  36·6

  50·9

  November 1982

  52·55

  138·40

  98·90

  38·0

  53·1

  November 1983

  54·50

  147·70

  106·20

  36·9

  51·3

  November 1984

  57·30

  159·60

  115·50

  35·9

  49·6

  November 1985

  61·30

  168·70

  122·80

  36·3

  49·9

  July 1986

  61·95

  176·70

  129·90

  35·1

  47·7

  April 1987

  63·25

  185·50

  138·40

  34·1

  45·7

  April 1988

  65·90

  200·60

  152·10

  32·9

  43·3

  April 1989

  69·80

  217·80

  164·80

  32·0

  42·4

  April 1990

  75·10

  237·20

  182·50

  31·7

  41·2

  April 1991

  83·25

  253·10

  194·80

  32·9

  42·7

  Notes:

  Gross average weekly earnings (GAWE) and net average weekly earnings (NAWE) are for male manual workers. All dates are uprating dates except 1968 when there was no uprating.

  Unemployed Pensioners
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of unemployed people aged over 55 years are disqualified from national insurance unemployment benefit, or have their national insurance benefit abated, because they are in receipt of occupational or personal pensions.

  Mr. Jack
  About 15,600, or 8·6 per cent. of unemployed claimants aged 55 or over are affected.

  Source: "Half Yearly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants" (UBS3) May 1991—grossed up from 5 per cent. sample.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make provision available to unemployed people aged 55 years or over whose occupational pension is committed to the payment of mortgage interest or other debts, and whose capital is above the limits for income support.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are committed to the policy of helping unemployed people meet their mortgage interest payments through income support where their circumstances qualify them for this benefit. However, we currently have no plans to extend this form of help by means of other social security benefits.

  Pensions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 3 February,Official Report, column 96, on raising state pensions, what would be the cost separated between employer and employee on average earnings for the changes proposed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The combined weekly cost in extra national insurance contributions of the proposed changes to a man on average earnings and his employer would be(a) £6 and (b) £5·50. This estimate assumes an equal split between employer and employee.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures include those detained in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  519

  Number of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation detained in connection with Northern Irish terrorism

  Number of persons detained under the Prevention of Terrorism legislation detained in connection with international terrorism1

  1982

  1,048

  —

  1983

  1,366

  —

  1984

  1,067

  44

  1985

  1,137

  73

  1986

  1,456

  55

  1987

  1,643

  41

  1988

  1,887

  16

  1989

  17,46

  18

  1990

  1,718

  24

  1991

  21,702

  32

  Total

  14,770

  303

  1 The power to detain persons in connection with international terrorism came into effect on 22 March 1984 with the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

  2 Provisional figure.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons who emanated(a) from the Republic of Ireland and (b) Northern Ireland have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts for each of the last 10 years;

  (2) for each of the last five years, how many persons who emanated from the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts on more than one occasion.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons who emanated from(a) the Republic of Ireland and (b) Northern Ireland were charged with offences following detention under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Statistics on those detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation are not kept in the form requested. The total numbers of people detained under the legislation and subsequently charged with offences are given in the table.

  Persons detained in connection with Northern Ireland terrorism and subsequently charged with offences 1Total

  Persons detained in connection with international terrorism and subsequently charged with offences Total

  1982

  22

  —

  1983

  31

  —

  1984

  23

  28

  1985

  38

  15

  1986

  31

  5

  1987

  17

  8

  1988

  18

  3

  1989

  18

  3

  1990

  25

  3

  1991

  7

  —

  1 The figures given relate to those detained on the mainland of Great Britain only. Details of those detained under the legislation in Northern Ireland and subsequently charged with offences are not kept in the form requested. However, 3,983 such people were charged with offences during the period 29 November 1984 to 30 September 1991.
  2 The power to detain persons in connection with international
  520
  terrorism came into effect on 22 March 1984 with the introduction of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons who emanated from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Republic of Ireland have been excluded from Great Britain following detention under the terms of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information available is given in the table.

  Total

  Number of people removed to Northern Ireland

  Number of

  people removed to the Republic of Ireland

  1982

  11

  10

  1

  1983

  13

  12

  1

  1984

  1

  1

  —

  1985

  2

  2

  —

  1986

  7

  7

  —

  1987

  15

  14

  1

  1988

  16

  11

  5

  1989

  9

  9

  —

  1990

  15

  12

  3

  1991

  10

  7

  3

  The figures given show the number of people removed to Northern Ireland or to the Republic of Ireland in each year. In addition, 11 exclusion orders were made in Northern Ireland during this period. Nine of the orders excluded people from the whole of the United Kingdom and two excluded people from Northern Ireland only.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons who have emanated from Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts in the Metropolitan police area for each of the last three years.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the total number of people detained under the prevention of terrorism legislation in the Metropolitan police district in each of the last three years is as follows:
  521

  Year

  Number

  1989

  30

  1990

  76

  1991

  57

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates on which the lower limit for eligibility for compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme has been raised since 1979, with the new limit in each case, expressed in cash terms and at 1991 prices.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date new minimum award introduced

  Minimum award £

  Equivalent value at 1991 prices (£) (using GDP deflator)

  April 1981

  250

  448

  February 1983

  400

  669

  November 1986

  550

  768

  February 1990

  750

  871

  January 1992

  1,000

  —

  Prison Suicides
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young men under 25 years have committed suicide while on remand in prison in the last year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Eleven unsentenced male prisoners under the age of 25 years died as a result of an act of deliberate self-harm in 1991. Of these, two were convicted but awaiting sentence. Verdicts of suicide were recorded at all six of the inquests that have so far been held into these deaths.

  Wolds Remand Centre
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to visit the site of the new Wolds remand centre.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I plan to visit Wolds remand prison later this month.

  Leeds Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next intends to visit Her Majesty's prison, Leeds.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I hope to include Leeds in my programme of future visits to prisons, but I have no firm arrangements for a visit at the moment.

  Heroin
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review he has undertaken of the standard of security arrangements maintained by the United Kingdom companies presently supplying pharmaceutical heroin—diamorphine—to the national health service.

  Mr. John Patten
  Companies that supply diamorphine are subject to stringent security requirements which are kept under regular review.
  522
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with air travel authorities about security problems arising from regular commercial shipment of heroin via United Kingdom airports.

  Mr. John Patten
  The transit of controlled drugs through United Kingdom airports has not hitherto given rise to any significant security problems. The arrangements for such movements are however kept under continuing review.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the International Narcotics Control Board on the proposals to allow commercial importation of heroin—diamorphine—to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My Department has consulted the International Narcotics Control Board and is taking its views into account.

  Pit Bull Terriers
  Dame Janet Fookes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pit bull terriers have been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; how many have been destroyed by their owners in preference to being registered; and how many he estimates remain unregistered.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  More than 8,000 notifications have been made in respect of all specially controlled dogs, including pit bull terriers. Some 400 claims for compensation have been made by owners who have had their dogs destroyed. Other owners have chosen to have their dogs destroyed but have not claimed compensation. By 11 February 3,200 certificates of exemption had been issued and some 1,100 applications are being processed.

  The "Index of Exempted Dogs" is writing again to the remaining owners who have not yet obtained a certificate of exemption to remind them of their legal obligations.

  Drinking and Driving
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent in each year from 1980 to 1991 on campaigns to stop drinking and driving.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  The expenditure by my Department on campaigns to stop drinking is recorded in financial years and between 1980–81 and 1990–91 the expenditure was as follows:

  £000

  1980–81

  1,589

  1981–82

  1,134

  1982–83

  1,183

  1983–84

  911

  1984–85

  818

  1985–86

  1,380

  1986–87

  2,296

  1987–88

  2,677

  1988–89

  2,130

  1989–90

  2,040

  1990–91

  2,011

PRIME MINISTER

  Russia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what information he has on Russia's plans to continue its nuclear warhead testing programme to maintain the safety and reliability of its nuclear weapon deterrent.

  The Prime Minister
  President Yeltsin's statement of 29 January confirmed that Russia will adhere to the one-year moratorium on testing announced in October 1991. President Yeltsin also called for other nuclear powers to refrain from testing. The United Kingdom has to carry out nuclear tests from time to time to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear deterrent.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the British gross domestic product per head expressed as a proportion of the European Community average in 1980, 1985 and 1990, including only those countries which were members of the Community in 1980.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures published by the OECD in "National Accounts 1969–1990" suggest that United Kingdom gross domestic product per head expressed as a percentage of the average for the EC excluding Greece, Portugal and Spain are as follows:

  Percentage

  1980

  90

  1985

  93

  1990

  94

  These figures are based on data of GDP at current prices and current purchasing power parities. Figures are provisional and the final set to be issued later in the year will include new information for several countries including the United Kingdom.

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  The central Treasury has two major applications which both accept and transmit electronic data. The financial information system takes in and then confirms with Departments their planned and current expenditure. The Treasury economic service accepts financial and economic data from both governmental—for example, Central Statistical Office—and commercial sources—for example, the Financial Times, Reuters, and so on.

  Computer centre Chessington interchanges information with other Government Departments and associated bodies in connection with pay, personnel and financial
  524
  accounting computer systems. No Treasury data information systems are linked to the PNC; nor is there any intention that they should be.

  The administration of all Treasury data information systems complies with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Universities Tax
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations the Inland Revenue has received from universities about tax treatment of consultancy earnings, holiday lettings and conference facilities; and what response has been given.

  Mr. Maude
  The Inland Revenue has recently had discussions about the tax treatment of these activities with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom, at the committee's request.

  The Inland Revenue has explained that universities are entitled to the same tax exemptions as other charities. Trading profits are exempt only where the trade is exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the charity, or where the work in connection with the trade is mainly carried out by beneficiaries of the charity. Profits from other trading activities are likely to be taxable, in the same way as for other traders. The outcome in each case will depend on its own particular facts.

  The Inland Revenue is seeking further information to assist in determining whether any particular activities give rise to taxable profits.

  Taxation (HGV Telephones)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the taxation of telephones in heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend has received a few representations on the taxation of the benefit of private use of employer provided telephones in heavy goods vehicles.

  "Official Report"
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the price charged for the daily Official Report of parliamentary debates in 1970, 1974, 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, and with a constant price index where 1970 = 100.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Actual Price in February

  Price Expressed in 1970 terms

  1970

  2s 3d

  2s 3d

  1974

  20p

  14p

  1979

  40p

  14p

  1983

  £1·00

  22p

  1987

  £2·95

  53p

  1992

  £7·50

  £1·04

  For many years the prices of parliamentary debates were heavily subsidised. In 1983, when the annual subsidy stood at £6 million, the Government decided progressively to reduce the level of subsidy required, by a combination

  525
  of price increases and improved methods of production. I was able to announce last November that the latest price increases, together with plans to enable the reports of proceedings to be "machine-read" by the HMSO presses, should permit the final elimination of the revenue subsidy—1 November 1991, Official Report, column 3.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mortgage repossession schemes he has considered with mortgage lenders since his statement of 19 December; how many families for each scheme are expected to be 526
  housed; how many families have already been housed; what has been the total cost; and if he will give the proportion met from public funds.

  Mr. Maples
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Lenders have pledged funding for mortgage rescue schemes which is expected by the Council of Mortgage Lenders to amount to £1 billion if the need is there. Detailed schemes have already been announced by some lenders and announcements from others are expected shortly. It is too early to provide estimates of the number of borrowers in difficulties who are being helped in these schemes or the consequential effect on housing benefit expenditure.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Bullying
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice and guidance he issues to local education authorities for the use of teachers and school governors to counteract bullying; and if he will assist with the provision of educational materials to help children when confronted with the problem.

  Mr. Fallon
  The report of the committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, chaired by Lord Elton and published in 1989, contained advice on bullying. Copies of the report were sent to all schools and local education authorities in England and Wales. The Department is funding a major research project on bullying which is aimed at making available guidance on good practice for all schools when the project is completed in August 1993.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children attended(a) primary—infant and junior—and (b) secondary schools in England each year since 1979.

  Mr. Fallon
  The number of pupils, in England, for the categories shown are given in the table.

  Capital expenditure: Local authority maintained schools in England

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Year

  Cash terms £ million

  1978–80 prices £ million

  Percentage change on previous year

  Cash terms £ million

  1979–80 prices £ million

  Percentage change on previous year

  1979–80

  124

  124

  —

  201

  201

  —

  1980–81

  162

  137

  +10·5

  229

  194

  -3·5

  1981–82

  131

  101

  -26·3

  183

  141

  -27·3

  1982–83

  131

  94

  -6·9

  197

  142

  +0·7

  1983–84

  146

  100

  +6·4

  197

  135

  -4·9

  1984–85

  171

  112

  +12·0

  197

  129

  -4·4

  1985–86

  195

  121

  +8·0

  202

  125

  -3·1

  1986–87

  215

  129

  +6·6

  205

  123

  -1·6

  1987–88

  254

  145

  +12·4

  215

  123

  0·0

  1988–89

  336

  179

  +23·4

  279

  148

  +20·3

  1989–90

  379

  189

  +5·6

  376

  188

  +27·0

  Notes:

  (1) 1989–90 is the latest year for which final outturn data are available.

  (2) Spending covers LEA maintained, voluntary aided and special agreement schools; DES grant and Governors' contribution to voluntary aided schools split 63 per cent. primary and 37 per cent. secondary as in 1990–91 VA major named projects.

  (3) Spending on special education is excluded.

  (4) Spending figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total spending on(a) primary—infant and junior—and (b) secondary schools in England each year since 1979 in cash terms and at 1979 prices; and what was the percentage change in the level of spending in real terms between each of those years.

  Mr. Fallon
  Net recurrent spending on primary and secondary schools in England is shown in the tables. The tables show for each year from 1979–80 to 1989–90, the latest year for which actual spending figures are available, expenditure in cash, expenditure at 1979–80 prices, and the percentage change in real terms spending from the previous year.528

  Full-time equivalent pupils in primary and secondary schools in England 1979 to 1991

  Maintained primary schools

  Maintained secondary schools

  1979

  4,444,500

  3,872,000

  1980

  4,285,600

  3,866,100

  1981

  4,098,700

  3,839,900

  1982

  3,922,800

  3,798,000

  1983

  3,752,400

  3,740,900

  1984

  3,668,600

  3,645,600

  1985

  3,645,000

  3,525,800

  1986

  3,654,600

  3,388,500

  1987

  3,684,600

  3,239,500

  1988

  3,731,600

  3,070,200

  1989

  3,786,300

  2,944,700

  1990

  3,859,400

  2,862,600

  1991

  3,914,800

  2,853,300

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the total capital spending on(a) primary—infant and junior—and (b) secondary schools in England each year since 1979 in cash terms and at 1979 prices; and what was the percentage change in the level of spending in real terms between each of those years.

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

  Nursery and primary schools2

  Year

  Net recurrent expenditure1

  Net recurrent expenditure at 1979–80 prices3

  Real terms change on previous year

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  1979–80

  19,081

  19,081

  1980–81

  23,282

  19,675

  3·1

  1981–82

  25,222

  19,438

  -1·2

  1982–83

  26,561

  19,108

  -1·7

  1983–84

  27,654

  19,013

  -0·5

  1984–85

  28,630

  18,747

  -1·4

  1985–86

  30,509

  18,933

  1·0

  1986–87

  34,011

  20,434

  7·9

  1987–88

  38,291

  21,819

  6·8

  1988–89

  42,254

  22,464

  3·0

  1989–90

  47,617

  23,773

  5·8

  529

  Secondary schools

  year

  Net recurrent expenditure1

  Net recurrent expenditure at 1979–80 prices3

  Real terms change on previous year

  £ million

  £ million

  Percentage

  1979–80

  24,846

  24,846

  1980–81

  30,934

  26,141

  5·2

  1981–82

  34,384

  26,498

  1·4

  1982–83

  36,915

  26,557

  0·2

  1983–84

  38,800

  26,677

  0·5

  1984–85

  40,173

  26,305

  -1·4

  1985–86

  43,523

  27,009

  2·7

  1986–87

  45,617

  27,406

  1·5

  1987–88

  49,067

  27,959

  2·0

  1988–89

  52,217

  27,761

  -0·7

  1989–90

  55,391

  27,954

  -0·4

  1 Net recurrent expenditure includes total expenditure other than costs of financing capital expenditure, less income other than from specific grants.

  2 Spending on nursery and primary schools was not collected separately for years after 1986–87, so expenditure figures cover both nursery and primary schools.

  3 Expenditure figures have been repriced to 1979–80 prices using the current GDP (market prices) deflator index.

  Note: The figures in the tables are derived from local education authorities' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment.

  Schools (Capital Schemes)
  Mr. Carr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a list of secondary schools that have applied for borrowing approval for capital schemes; and, in each case, whether approval was given.

  Mr. Fallon
  Under the terms of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, only local authorities are allowed to bid for borrowing approval for capital schemes.

  Details of all secondary schools included within LEAs' capital bids and our decisions in each case could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the international fund for agricultural development in achieving its aim of providing long-term aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The IFAD has an effective monitoring and evaluation system, which includes the provision of an annual report on evaluation findings to the executive board. An evaluation committee of the board meets regularly to examine issues in more detail.

  Africa (Food Crisis)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to the second phase of the United Nation's international fund for agricultural development to overcome Africa's food crisis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We consider that IFAD's future activities in Africa should be financed in the same way as its work elsewhere. The most important priority is to work 530
  for a successful outcome to the fourth replenishment of IFAD's resources, discussions on which will start in Qatar in April.

WALES

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what data information systems his Department has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what is the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My Department has no existing or planned links between its computer systems and external data information systems or the police national computer.

  Government Grants
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what Government grants were awarded for(a) ferry services and (b) bridge projects in Wales listed by county, for each of the last five years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has not grant-aided any ferry services. Local authority road schemes supported under transport grant can involve bridges, and assistance can be provided, for example, through the urban programme, European regional development fund and historic buildings and ancient monuments grants. A central record is not kept.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to identify and quantify the use made of day centres in South Glamorgan for Alzheimer's disease sufferers and their carers and the extent to which they have succeeded in improving the quality of life for those involved.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: The three-day centres run by the Alzheimer's Disease Society in Cardiff provide a valuable service for sufferers and their carers.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to extend the finances available through urban aid grant for running day centres for those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and their carers in South Glamorgan.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: In Wales, funding previously available for mental illness services through the urban programme is now directed through the mental illness strategy. In 1992–93, the Welsh Office will make £58,035 directly available to the Alzheimer's Disease Society for the running of its three day centres in Cardiff.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give for each county in Wales his estimate of the number of people suffering from Alzheimer's disease at the present time and in each of the past five years.
  531
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The information is not available centrally, but, based on an estimate derived from the NHS Health Advisory Service's publication "The Rising Tide—Developing Services for Mental Illness in Old Age" published in November 1982, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, there are approximately 28,000—9,500 males and 18,500 females—suffering from Alzheimer's disease in Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the centres available in each county in Wales which cater for Alzheimer's disease sufferers and their carers together with the financial contribution made to each by his Department.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The information is not available centrally, but the Department made available in 1991–92 a total of £2·26 million through the mental illness strategy and elderly initiative grant schemes towards services in Wales for elderly people with a mental illness, including sufferers from Alzheimer's disease.

  Waste Water
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total percentage of waste water(a) treated at inland works and receiving secondary or tertiary treatment, (b) treated at inland works and receiving primary treatment or less, (c) discharged at sea through properly designed long outfalls and (d) discharged into the sea without treatment by the water authorities operational in Wales.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the following three reports: House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities 10th report "Municipal Waste Water Treatment"; The study of coastal sewage discharges carried out by consultants in environmental services for the Department of the Environment, a copy of which is in the Library of the House; and "Waterfacts 1990" published by the Water Services Association, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Projected Traffic Levels
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his latest estimate of projected traffic levels for Welsh roads for 2000.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Overall traffic growth in Wales is expected to be in line with the current National Road Traffic Forecasts which give an increase in traffic between 1991 and 2000 of 18 per cent. on low growth and 30 per cent. at high growth.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Data Information Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what data information systems his office has(a) agreed and (b) been consulted about with a view to taking part in; what are the criteria for inclusion in such systems; whether they will be linked to (i) the police national computer and (ii) other computer systems; what data protection provisions apply to them; and if he will make a statement.
  532
  Mr. MacGregor
  The Privy Council Office has data information systems for routine administrative purposes, and a link is maintained with the Chessington computer centre, which operates the payment of salaries. The department is subject to the Data Protection Act 1984 to the extent specified in section 38 of the Act, and personal data held are covered, except where they are expressly exempt.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Facilities
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many high chairs are available in refreshment establishments within the House of Commons for the use of children.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I shall ask the Director of Catering Services to write to my hon. Friend.

  Members' Salaries
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will outline the implications for future changes in hon. Members' salaries of the negotiations taking place on performance pay for grades 5 to 7 civil servants.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The nature of the new pay arrangements for grades 5 to 7 civil servants are currently being developed. It is too early to assess the implications, if any, for future changes in hon. Members' salaries.

  Divisions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list in order from largest to smallest the numbers of Divisions hon. Members took part in during the 1990–91 Session.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 31 January 1992]: This information is available in a document entitled "Survey of Voting Participation Rates Regarding House of Commons Divisions", published by Campaign Information, a copy of which is available in the Library.

HEALTH

  North-West Region (Hospitals)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there were in the North-West regional hospitals in(a) 1979, (b) 1987 and (c)

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  National Health Service Hospitals, North Western Regional Health Authority

  Year

  Average daily number beds

  In-patients

  Day cases

  1 1979

  30,812

  509,049

  70,608

  1 1987–88

  27,320

  644,540

  120,368

  2 1990–91

  24,057

  733,809

  153,220

  1 In-patients; discharges and deaths.

  2 In-patients: finished consultant episodes.

  Radiotherapy (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are awaiting radiotherapy in the Greater Manchester health authorities; how many were on the lists for treatment in each year since 1989; and what is the average waiting time for treatment in each authority in each of those years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information on the number of patients waiting for radiotherapy is given in the table. The median waiting time for those treated from radiotherapy waiting lists in the Greater Manchester area was 23 days in 1988–89 and 22 days in 1989–90. Information is not yet available centrally for 1990–91.

  The figures relate to South Manchester, the only health district in Greater Manchester where radiotherapy is carried out.

  Greater Manchester—Waiting lists for radiotherapy In-patients and day cases

  Year

  Number waiting1

  March 1989

  190

  March 1990

  244

  March 1991

  183

  1 Total number waiting less self-deferred cases.

  Long-stay Beds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each(a) regional health authority and (b) each district health authority the current number of national health serrvice long-stay continuing care beds.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The only figures available centrally on long-stay beds relate to mental illness and learning disability. For information on numbers of geriatric beds, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 11 February. Long-stay geriatic beds are not separately identified.

  Patients (Personal Information)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow a patient to consent to, or to be aware of, those uses and disclosures of personal information that are not obvious at the time the patient provides the information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Patients give consent (either expressly or implicitly) to the use of personal information for the purpose of their care and treatment and for NHS management purposes. The Department is currently consulting about a draft EC directive on data protection which includes a proposal that individuals should be given specific advice about the purposes for which it is proposed to record information about them.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether NHS trusts are required to have qualified and nominated officers with financial responsibility corresponding to those in the Local Government Acts 1975 and 1988.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Paragraph 6.2b of schedule 2 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 534
  clearly states that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the power to control the qualifications of persons who may be employed as officers of the trust if he thinks it necessary.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibilities non-executive directors of NHS trusts are required to exercise for audit and financial scrutiny.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An NHS trust's accounts are the corporate responsibility of the trust's board. All board members, including the non-executives, are expected to take general responsibility for every aspect of the trust's business and operation. While it is not a statutory responsibility many of the non-executive directors have financial and commercial backgrounds of particular relevance and are able to make an effective contribution to financial management.

  Cost-weighted Activity Index
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department calculates the cost-weighted activity index; and if he will place the relevant technical papers in the Library.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The cost-weighted activity index is a broad aggregate measure of the increase in activity in the hospital and community health services. Since activity increases at different rates in different areas of the HCHS, and it would not be appropriate to add different types of activity together—for example hospital in-patient activity and treatments by chiropodists—the increases in activity in each of these areas are weighted together according to the proportion of total expenditure on them. Thus, because hospital in-patient activity consumes the largest share of expenditure—over 60 per cent.—growth in this area of activity has the highest weight in the index.

  A more detailed description of the construction of the index, with information about the specific areas of activity included, and the expenditure weights used, was published in the Department of Health evidence to the Social Services Committee in 1986 and details of certain revisions to the index were given in the Department of Health memorandum to the Health Committee in 1991. Both of these publications are available in the Library.

  Citizens Charter
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effects the citizens charter will have on the provision of information for patients about medical treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The patients charter confirms the existing right of patients to receive sufficient information about the proposed treatments, the possible alternatives and any substantial risks, so that they can make a balanced judgment in deciding whether to consent to treatment.

  Cardiologists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of cardiologists per one million population in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Northern Ireland at the last convenient date for which data is available.
  535
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The latest data available show that there are 3·3 consultant cardiologists per million population in England. Information relating to Wales and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Medical Treatment
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Helth what measures his Department is taking to ensure that questions regarding medical treatment, whenever the patient requests such information, are answered in a prompt, accurate and comprehensive form.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department issued guidelines in August 1991 which required that before a patient receives treatment he is entitled to as much information as is necessary in order to decide whether to consent to that treatment. After treatment has commenced, a patient has the right under the Access to Health Records Act 1990 to see his record and to receive an explanation of the information recorded. The Department's advice on the Act encourages the informal voluntary disclosure of information.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will bring forward legislation to provide better information for patients about medical treatment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Such legislation is unnecessary since patients have the right under common law to give or withhold consent prior to examination or treatment. To exercise this right patients are entitled to be given a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks and any alternatives.

  Qa Business Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a public inquiry into the sale of Qa Business Services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Qa Business Services was formed in December 1989 as a result of a management buyout of the management services division of West Midlands regional health authority. The company was put into administrative receivership in September 1991. Some of the assets of the company were acquired by AT & T ISTEL in October 1991. Any investigation of this company's affairs would be a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

  NHS Administration
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of staff employed by the NHS are engaged in administrative work; and what was the figure in 1979.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  At September 1990, staff employed on the terms and conditions of the administrative and clerical staffs Whitley council made up 15·1 per cent. of the total NHS work force in England compared with 13·3 per cent. at September 1979. More than one quarter of them work in direct support to clinicians. Numbers of such clinically-related staff have nearly trebled 536
  since 1979 and this is helping to free clinical staff to concentrate their skills and experience on direct patient care.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in preparing a statement about the rules governing the confidentiality and security of personal data held within the OPCS; and if he will now make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A draft statement of policies has now been produced, a copy of which I have placed in the Library. The Registrar General will be seeking the views of a range of outside bodies before this statement is formally adopted. The policies it proposes are, however, being followed in OPCS, pending consideration of the views obtained through the consultation process.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of allowances and expenses to members of family practitioner committees in the last year for which figures are available; and what is the projected cost of such allowances and expenses in the first full year of family health service units.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 27 January 1992]: Family health services authorities (FHSAs) were established on 17 September 1990 and consequently 1989–90 was the last full financial year of operation for their predecessor family practitioner committees (FPCs). Arrangements to remunerate (essentially to compensate) members for their time spent on FHSA business were introduced only during 1990–91.

  The information derivable from the 1989–90 and 1990–91 annual accounts of FPCs/FHSAs in England is shown as follows.

  This detailed information is not collected in-year and any projected cost for the current financial year would be speculative. However, broadly equivalent information derived from the 1991–92 annual accounts of FHSAs will be available in the autumn.

  1989–90 £000 (cash)

  1990–91 £000 (cash)

  Chairmen's remuneration

  450

  1,003

  Members' remuneration

  —

  2,234

  Members' travelling and subsistence expenses

  498

  527

NORTHERN IRELAND

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

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is set out in the tables.
  537

  Hospital medical staff—Northern Ireland

  Analysis by specialty and grade, showing number of staff in post and whole-time equivalent at 30 September 1986

  Consultants

  SHMOS and associate specialists

  Senior registrars

  Registrars

  Senior house officers

  Pre-Reg House officers

  All grades

  Specialty

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  Accident and Emergency

  7

  7·0

  9

  8·6

  2

  2·0

  1

  1·0

  38

  37·0

  2

  2·0

  59

  57·6

  Anaesthetics

  87

  84·0

  8

  7·2

  17

  16·0

  22

  21·5

  27

  27·0

  0

  0·0

  161

  155·7

  Anatomy

  1

  0·5

  1

  0·9

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·4

  Cardiology

  15

  14·7

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  4

  4·0

  8

  8·0

  4

  4·0

  32

  31·7

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  3

  3·0

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  11

  11·0

  Chemical Pathology

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  5

  5·0

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  3

  2·6

  1

  1·0

  3

  3·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  8

  7·6

  Clinical Genetics

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·6

  Clinical Neuro-Physiology

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  Clinical Pharmacology

  4

  2·2

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·5

  1

  1·0

  4

  4·0

  2

  2·0

  13

  10·7

  Dermatology

  11

  10·4

  1

  0·6

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  4

  4·0

  1

  1·0

  19

  18·0

  Ent (Otdrhindlaryngology)

  22

  20·5

  1

  0·6

  3

  2·5

  7

  7·0

  12

  12·0

  0

  0·0

  45

  42·6

  Gen Med Spec Int Geriatrics

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  General Medicine

  58

  54·1

  3

  3·0

  14

  12·5

  9

  8·0

  98

  98·0

  56

  55·1

  238

  230·7

  General Pathology

  4

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  8

  8·0

  General Surgery

  53

  50·5

  0

  0·0

  7

  6·5

  16

  14·0

  72

  71·5

  61

  61·0

  209

  203·5

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  4·0

  Geriatric Medicine

  16

  14·4

  7

  7·0

  5

  4·5

  2

  2·0

  16

  16·0

  4

  4·0

  50

  47·9

  Haematology/Blood Transfusion

  10

  9·0

  4

  3·1

  7

  7·0

  1

  1·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  24

  22·1

  Histology

  1

  0·2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  0·2

  Histopathology

  16

  12·9

  0

  0·0

  9

  6·5

  5

  5·0

  5

  5·0

  0

  0·0

  35

  29·4

  Immuno-Pathology

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  3

  2·6

  Infectious Diseases

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  7

  7·0

  Medical Microbiology

  8

  7·1

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  5

  5·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  16

  15·1

  Medical Oncology

  2

  1·1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·1

  Mental Handicap

  6

  6·0

  8

  8·0

  2

  1·5

  4

  3·5

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  20

  19·0

  Mental Illness

  45

  42·2

  15

  14·0

  20

  16·6

  20

  19·0

  41

  41·0

  0

  0·0

  141

  132·8

  Nephrology

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  1·0

  8

  8·0

  Neurology

  4

  3·5

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  6

  5·5

  0

  0·0

  12

  11·0

  Neurosurgery

  4

  3·5

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  8

  7·5

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  41

  36·7

  2

  2·0

  8

  7·5

  15

  14·0

  74

  72·5

  1

  1·0

  141

  133·7

  Ophthalmology

  14

  12·4

  13

  9·2

  1

  1·0

  10

  10·0

  6

  6·0

  0

  0·0

  44

  38·6

  Orthopaedics

  21

  18·7

  0

  0·0

  6

  6·0

  4

  3·5

  6

  5·0

  10

  10·0

  47

  43·2

  Other Departments

  1

  1·0

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·6

  Paediatric Surgery

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  6

  6·0

  2

  2·0

  13

  13·0

  Paediatrics

  20

  17·2

  1

  0·5

  4

  3·5

  7

  6·5

  39

  37·5

  4

  4·0

  75

  69·2

  Physiology

  4

  0·6

  1

  0·2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  5

  0·8

  Plastic Surgery

  5

  4·5

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  0·5

  1

  1·0

  2

  2·0

  11

  10·0

  Radiology

  36

  35·2

  1

  0·5

  5

  5·0

  11

  11·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  55

  53·6

  Radiotherapy

  5

  5·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  4·0

  5

  5·0

  0

  0·0

  14

  14·0

  Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  1·0

  5

  5·0

  3

  3·0

  13

  13·0

  Thoracic Medicine

  0

  0·0

  3

  3·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  8

  8·0

  Urology

  4

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  4·0

  All Specialties

  549

  505·4

  80

  69·8

  134

  122·1

  163

  155·5

  499

  493·0

  153

  152·1

  1,578

  1,498·0

  Note: This report excludes 'community medicine' staff and 65 staff on 'study leave'.

  Hospital medical staff—Northern Ireland

  Analysis hr specialty and grade, showing number of staff in post and whole-time equivalent at 30 September 1990

  Consultants

  SHMOS and associate specialists

  Senior registrars

  Registrars

  Senior house officers

  Pre-Reg house officers

  All grades

  Specialty

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  Accident and Emergency

  8

  8·0

  8

  7·5

  2

  2·0

  2

  2·0

  49

  45·4

  0

  0·0

  69

  64·9

  Anaesthetics

  99

  95·3

  8

  7·2

  18

  17·5

  19

  19·0

  29

  29·0

  0

  0·0

  173

  168·0

  Anatomy

  1

  0·5

  1

  0·9

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·4

  Cardiology

  14

  13·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  3

  3·0

  9

  9·0

  4

  4·0

  31

  30·8

  Cardiothoracic Surgery

  5

  5·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  3

  3·0

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  12

  12·0

  Chemical Pathology

  3

  2·6

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  7

  6·0

  Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  5

  4·6

  1

  1·0

  4

  4·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  12

  11·6

  Clinical Genetics

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  3

  2·6

  Clinical Neuro-Physiology

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  Clinical Pharmacology

  4

  2·2

  0

  0·0

  1

  0·6

  1

  0·5

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  7

  4·3

  Dermatology

  12

  11·4

  1

  0·6

  1

  1·0

  3

  3·0

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  20

  19·0

  Endocrinology and Diabetes

  0

  0·0

  0

  00

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  Ent (Otdrhindlaryngology)

  22

  20·5

  1

  0·6

  4

  4·0

  5

  5·0

  16

  16·0

  0

  0·0

  48

  46·1

  Forensic Psychiatry

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  0·5

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·5

  Gen Med Spec Int Geriatrics

  7

  7·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  7

  7·0

  General Medicine

  60

  56·1

  2

  2·0

  10

  9·5

  8

  7·5

  104

  104·0

  67

  67·0

  251

  246·1

  General Pathology

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  General Surgery

  52

  49·0

  1

  1·0

  8

  7·5

  20

  18·6

  66

  65·0

  66

  66·0

  213

  207·1

  Genito-Urinary Medicine

  3

  2·9

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  6

  5·9

  Geriatric Medicine

  17

  15·2

  7

  7·0

  I

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  23

  23·0

  6

  6·0

  55

  53·2

  Haematology/Blood Transfusion

  12

  11·0

  3

  2·6

  3

  3·0

  2

  2·0

  4

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  24

  22·7

  Histology

  1

  0·2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  0·2

  Histopathology

  22

  19· 2

  0

  0·0

  5

  4·0

  6

  5·5

  6

  6·0

  0

  0·0

  39

  34·7

  Immuno-Pathology

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·6

  Infectious Diseases

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  5

  5·0

  0

  0·0

  7

  7·0

  Medical Microbiology

  12

  11·1

  0

  0·0

  5

  5·0

  2

  2·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  21

  20·1

  Medical Oncology

  2

  1·1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·1

  Mental Handicap

  7

  7·0

  7

  7·0

  2

  1·5

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  0

  0·0

  18

  17·5

  538 539

  Consultants

  SHMOS and associate specialists

  Senior registrars

  Registrars

  Senior house officers

  Pre-Reg house officers

  All grades

  Specialty

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  No.

  WTE

  Mental Illness

  45

  42·6

  13

  11·9

  14

  12·0

  8

  7·0

  64

  63·0

  0

  0·0

  144

  136·5

  Nephrology

  5

  4·1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  3

  3·0

  2

  2·0

  11

  10·1

  Neurology

  5

  4·5

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  1·0

  5

  5·0

  0

  0·0

  13

  12·5

  Neuropathology

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·6

  Neurosurgery

  4

  3·5

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  8

  7·5

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  41

  38·0

  1

  1·0

  7

  6·5

  17

  15·5

  68

  68·0

  1

  1·0

  135

  130·0

  Occupational Medicine

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1·0

  Ophthalmology

  13

  12·0

  12

  8·5

  4

  4·0

  5

  4·5

  7

  7·0

  0

  0·0

  41

  36·0

  Orthopaedics

  22

  19·4

  0

  0·0

  4

  4·0

  4

  4·0

  10

  10·0

  9

  9·0

  49

  46·4

  Other Departments

  1

  1·0

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·6

  Paediatric Surgery

  3

  3·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  4

  4·0

  1

  1·0

  9

  9·0

  Paediatrics

  21

  18·8

  1

  0·5

  4

  3·0

  8

  8·0

  48

  47·5

  0

  0·0

  82

  77·7

  Physiology

  3

  0·5

  1

  0·2

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  0·6

  Plastic Surgery

  5

  4·4

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  1·0

  2

  2·0

  10

  9·4

  Psychiatry of Old Age

  2

  1·6

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  1·6

  Psychotherapy

  1

  1·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  Radiology

  46

  45·3

  1

  0·5

  5

  5·0

  4

  4·0

  4

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  60

  53·6

  Radiotherapy

  5

  5·0

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  3

  3·0

  6

  6·0

  0

  0·0

  15

  15·0

  Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

  5

  4·6

  0

  0·0

  1

  1·0

  1

  1·0

  8

  8·0

  1

  1·0

  16

  15·6

  Thoracic Medicine

  0

  0·0

  3

  2·9

  1

  0·5

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  3·4

  Urology

  4

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  2·0

  1

  0·6

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  7

  6·6

  All Specialties

  607

  563·2

  73

  63·4

  120

  112·1

  139

  132·7

  554

  547·9

  159

  159·0

  1,652

  1,578·3

  Note: This report excludes `community medicine' staff and 60 staff on `study leave'.

  Government Grants
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what Government grants were awarded for(a) ferry services and (b) bridge projects in Northern Ireland listed by region, for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  Grants amounting to approximately £60,000 have been awarded in the current financial year to the operators of the ferry service between Ballycastle and Rathlin island. No grants were awarded in previous years.

  The funding of public road bridges is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the major capital road schemes programmed in 1989 for the years 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and what was the estimated cost of each scheme.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is as follows:

  Financial Year and Proposed Schemes

  Total estimated cost £ million (at 1989) prices)

  1989–90

  Frederick Street, Belfast

  2·7

  East Link, Dundonald

  0·6

  Greenmount Link Roundabout, Coleraine

  0·2

  Crossnadonnell, Limavady

  0·4

  Strand Road/Culmore Road, Londonderry

  0·8

  Bridge Street/Tavanagh Avenue, Portadown

  0·9

  Newry 8A (Canal Street/Downshire Road Link)

  1·4

  Dunmurry By-Pass: Stage 2.C

  3·1

  A48 Donaghadee Road, Newtownards

  1·1

  T4 Hillsborough Bypass Junction

  0·4

  Strabane Bypass: Stage 1

  3·8

  Enniskillen Throughpass: Stage 3B (Link road)

  0·1

  Enniskillen Throughpass: Stage 3B

  1·0

  1990–91

  T8 Castledawson Bypass

  3·1

  B101 Oldstone Road: Stage 2

  1·1

  540

  Finicial Year and Peoposed Schemes

  Total estimated cost £ million (at 1989 prices)

  Forster Green Junction, Belfast

  0·5

  Ballymaconaghy Road, Castlereagh: Phase 1

  0·1

  Ballymaconaghy Road, Castlereagh: Phase 2

  0·5

  Castlereagh Roundabout, Belfast

  1·1

  Greenmount Link, Coleraine: Stage 5

  0·4

  Bushmills Road, Coleraine

  0·7

  Church Street/Scotch Street, Downpatrick

  1·0

  Dunmurry Bypass: Stage 2D

  2·5

  High Street/Hamilton Road, Bangor

  1·3

  1991–92

  Killead Bypass

  1·5

  M2 Crosskennan Slip Roads

  0·6

  Belfast Schemes arising from Belfast Urban Area Plan

  3·3

  Queen's Quay, Londonderry

  1·2

  T4 Mullan's Corner Dualling

  1·8

  Newry Bypass: Stage 2

  3·4

  1992–93

  A26 Antrim/Ballymena Dualling: Stage 2

  3·1

  Belfast Schemes arising from Belfast Urban Area Plan

  3·3

  Strand Road, Londonderry: Stage 2

  0·9

  Greenmount Link, Coleraine: Stages 3 and 4

  0·5

  Newry Bypass: Stage 3

  5·8

  Comber Bypass: Stage 2

  2·6

  Omagh Throughpass: Stage 2

  2·7

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the major capital road schemes programmed in 1987 for the years 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92; and what was the estimated cost of each scheme.

  Mr. Needham
  Prior to 1989 the programme for major capital road schemes only covered a three-year period. In 1987 the Programme was as follows:
  541

  Financial year and proposed schemes

  Total estimated cost £m (at 1987 prices)

  1987£88

  Spine Road, Carrickfergus

  0·6

  A26 Antrim-Ballymena Dualling Stage 1

  3·1

  A57/B101 Airport Road, Antrim

  0·9

  T1 Tillysburn Roundabout, Belfast

  1·0

  Short Strand, Belfast

  1·3

  East Link, Dundonald

  0·5

  Longwood Road, Newtownabbey

  0·5

  Waterside/Caw, Londonderry

  2·2

  T4 Banbridge Bypass Dualling: Bridge

  0·2

  Lisburn Throughpass (Bridge Street-Hillsborough Road)

  1·2

  T4 Hillsborough Bypass Junction

  0·5

  A29 Carland Bridge

  0·8

  Omagh Throughpass: Stage 2

  2·6

  1988–89

  T8 Castledawson Bypass

  2·1

  Frederick Street, Belfast

  1·4

  Greenmount Link Roundabout, Coleraine

  0·1

  Buncrana Road, Londonderry

  0·3

  Banbridge Bypass Dualling

  1·4

  Bridge Street/Tavanagh Avenue, Portadown

  0·3

  Newry 8A (Canal Street/Downshire Road Link)

  0·8

  Dunmurry Bypass: Stage 2A

  2·1

  Balloo Road, Bangor: Stage 2

  0·5

  1989–90

  Killead Bypass

  0·8

  Northern Distributor, Ballymena

  2·2

  A26 Antrim-Ballymena Dualling: Stage 2

  2·5

  Forster Green Junction, Belfast

  1·4

  Greenmount Link, Coleraine: Stages 3 and 4

  0·4

  Strand Road, Londonderry: Stage 3, Phase 2

  0·2

  Culmore Road, Londonderry

  0·4

  Crossnadonnel, Limavady

  0·3

  T4 Improvements—Fourmile

  0·2

  —Sheepbridge

  0·2

  A2 Warrenpoint Road, Newry

  0·2

  Dunmurry Bypass: Stage 2C

  1·8

  Church Street/Scotch Street, Downpatrick

  0·6

  Strabane Bypass: Stage 1

  2·2

  Enniskillen Throughpass: Stage 3B

  0·9

  Moneyreagh (Street Lighting)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the adequacy of the street lighting at Moneyreagh village was last reviewed; and if he will arrange for a further review of street lighting at Moneyreagh.

  Mr. Needham
  The adequacy of street lighting in Moneyreagh village is monitored regularly and improvements are carried out when considered necessary, subject to the availability of finance. No specific review is planned.

  Toll Bridges
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the figures for the(a) annual income and cost and (b) capital debt outstanding for toll bridges in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  There are no toll bridges in Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hours per week the chairman works for Northern Ireland Airports Ltd.; what involvement he has in its day-to-day management; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Londonderry Port and Harbour Commissioners
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the members of the Londonderry port and harbour commissioners; and if he will identify with which user firms of the port each of these persons is associated.

  Mr. Needham
  The membership is as follows:

  J. T. Eaton (Chairman)

  J. Doherty (Deputy Chairman)

  M. G. Black

  G. Craig

  C. B. Doherty

  Mrs. H. McClure

  J. S. McIlvenny

  C. Murray-Cavanagh

  Councillor J. Tierney

  No member of the board is associated with a user firm of the port.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of(a) employees in employment and (b) self-employed people in the Darlington constituency in June 1983, June 1987 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Jackson
  Latest available constituency data for the self-employed relates to the population census for 1981.

  Information available for employees in employment is from the periodic censuses of employment and is given in the table. No census was taken in 1983.

  Employees in employment in the Darlington constituency

  September of each year

  Number of employees

  1984

  33,300

  1987

  34,100

  11989

  36,700

  1 latest available

  Youth Training
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to review the guarantee that all 16-year-olds with special needs in the north-west region will be offered a place if they so wish on any available youth training scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  The YT guarantee assures young people, whether they have special training needs or not, the offer of a suitable training place. The Department's regional directors are in close touch with every training and enterprise council about the guarantee position in its area.
  543
  Where necessary, the Government have offered TECs additional support so that they can continue to meet the guarantee.

  Seafarers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the provisions of employment legislation which exempt seafarers on vessels registered in the United Kingdom or Crown dependencies from the general provisions of such legislation.

  Mr. Forth
  Provisions which exclude seafarers of various descriptions in some circumstances from certain of the provisions of general employment legislation include:

  Section 119 of the Employment Protection Act 1975

  Section 10 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975

  Sections 8 and 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976

  Sections 141 and 144 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

  Section 30 of the Wages Act 19860

  Paragraph 16 of schedule 1 of the Employment Act 1990

  Merseyside TEC
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what amount of provision of training he will purchase from the Merseyside training and enterprise council in 1992–93.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: This is the subject of local negotiations. Therefore figures for 1992–93 are not available.

  The Employment Department contract with Merseyside training and enterprise council for 1991-92 is made up of the following expenditure:

  £

  Block 1

  20,906,987

  Block 2

  12,960,897

  Block 3

  3,551,350

  Block 4

  1,205,303

  Block 5

  2,029,638

  Total

  40,654,170

  Block 1 covers: Youth Training and Education.

  Block 2 covers: Adult Training—Employment Training.

  Block 3 covers: Business and Enterprise.

  Block 4 covers: Other expenditure including local initiative fund activities, advertising and publicity etc.

  Block 5 covers: Management costs.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the expenditure and achievements of his Department in North Yorkshire during 1991; and what was the comparable position between June 1979 and May 1980.

  Mr. Jackson
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The Leeds and North Yorkshire area of the Employment Service and North Yorkshire training and enterprise council (TEC) have helped a wide range of people and businesses in North Yorkshire during 1991. The main achievements are set out as follows; those for the Employment Service cover the calendar year 1991; and for North Yorkshire TEC cover the period 1 April to 31 December 1991.

  Employment Service achievements in North Yorkshire
  Over 17,000 people placed into jobs;
  544
  Over 16,000 unemployed people interviewed and advised under the Restart and similar arrangements;
  Over 1,100 unemployed people helped through nine Jobclubs.

  North Yorkshire TEC
  1,700 young people entered Youth Training;
  Over 2,100 unemployed people entered employment training;
  1,000 unemployed people entered the enterprise allowance scheme;
  Help under a range of special initiatives, including a Centre for Training and Development, Business Development Projects, Women into Enterprise, and Access into Management.

  Employment Service expenditure in North Yorkshire is not available. The expenditure of the North Yorkshire TEC in the calendar year is not available; the TEC budget for financial year 1991–92 is £18·03 million.

  Information is not available for 1979 and 1980.

  Other services and facilities of this Department, such as the wages inspectorate and the redundancy payments service, are also available in North Yorkshire but cannot be separated out.

SCOTLAND

  Data (Personal Health Information)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take with regard to the code of practice on the confidentiality of personal health information in the light of the seventh report of the Data Protection Registrar; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My officials have arranged a meeting with the Data Protection Registrar's department to discuss the matters raised in the report. There are no plans at present to amend the code of practice but the concerns of the Data Protection Registrar will be taken into account in any future revision of the code.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow patients, consumers and parents to consent to, or to be aware of, those uses and disclosures of personal information that are not obvious at the time the citizen provides the information; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Personal information contained in health records is primarily for the health care of patients. Advice to patients on other uses which may be made of such information is already contained in some hospital admission booklets. It is planned to extend this practice to all hospital admission booklets and guidance on this will be issued to health boards and NHS trusts.

  There are no plans to extend the restrictions on the use of the information contained in a pupil's progress record as set out in regulation 10(3) of the School General (Scotland) Regulations 1975.

  Consumer affairs are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the action taken by health boards in response to the report produced by the working group of the national medical consultants committee on the management of diabetes in Scotland.
  545
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Comprehensive information is not available about action taken by health boards as a direct response to the recommendations made in 1987 by the National Medical Consultative Committee working group on diabetes. Clinical audit which is supported by specific Government funding is now the principal mechanism employed to review and improve patient care in the whole range of settings and six health boards have reported 12 separate audit projects for diabetes in general practice and in hospitals and in shared care. Applications for two national projects to be led by the recently formed Scottish study group for the care of the young diabetic will shortly be considered for funding. A third project involving health boards in the central belt of Scotland is under discussion.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives from the British Diabetic Association; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no records of my right hon. Friend meeting representatives from the British Diabetic Association in recent years.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for each health board, the number of consultant diabetic physicians per head of the population.

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

  Consultants in Endocrinology and Diabetes at 30 September 1991

  Health board

  Number (whole-time equivalents)

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Greater Glasgow

  3

  0·32

  Lothian

  1

  0·13

  Tayside

  1

  0·25

  Notes:

  1. Data are provisional.

  2. All the consultants are whole time.

  3. All other boards have no diabetes consultants.

  4. Information collected centrally records only the main specialty of a doctor. The above figures therefore do not include general physicians who have a special interest in endocrinology or diabetes.

  Major products supplied

  Year ending 31 March

  Whole blood (donations)

  Red cell concentrate (donations)

  Factor VIII (vials)

  Factor IX (vials)

  Albumin (bottles)

  1978

  138,988

  106,169

  7,733

  3,681

  26,943

  1979

  138,740

  115,623

  8,346

  2,761

  24,904

  1980

  135,239

  129,350

  10,053

  3,273

  37,979

  1981

  121,365

  143,796

  18,154

  2,875

  39,406

  1982

  98,405

  173,550

  19,518

  2,998

  43,335

  1983

  81,581

  185,543

  24,890

  3,381

  56,065

  1984

  61,655

  204,325

  30,345

  4,293

  62,486

  1985

  57,953

  210,069

  35,732

  4,761

  64,555

  1986

  41,021

  220,602

  29,176

  3,275

  65,044

  1987

  26,407

  222,570

  37,243

  1,013

  77,752

  1988

  19,210

  221,025

  52,204

  9,614

  100,272

  1989

  22,454

  237,144

  41,335

  9,160

  95,057

  1990

  11,704

  256,361

  42,798

  7,812

  89,060

  1991

  9,210

  278,300

  52,023

  8,689

  89,306

  Assisted Places
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has decided on the level of fee remission grant which will be available to parents under the assisted places scheme in school session 1992–93.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend is making £9·6 million available for fee remission in 1992–93. Fifty-eight schools across Scotland will participate in the scheme. The funding now available should increase the number of pupils benefiting to the planned level of about 3,000 by the end of the session.

  Blood
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many donations of blood were taken by the National Blood Transfusion Service in Scotland, in each year from 1978 to the latest year available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The number of donations taken in each year since 1978 was:

  Year ending 31 March

  Number of donations

  1978

  284,358

  1979

  284,184

  1980

  279,653

  1981

  286,230

  1982

  281,904

  1983

  284,248

  1984

  298,945

  1985

  307,356

  1986

  299,023

  1987

  285,866

  1988

  259,991

  1989

  266,259

  1990

  275,565

  1991

  291,819

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many transfers of(a) blood and (b) blood products were performed by the national health service in Scotland in each year from 1978 to the latest year available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Information on transfers performed is not available in the form requested. Figures of blood and blood products supplied by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service to hospitals for use in each year was as follows:

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the numbers on employment training and youth training schemes in Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  Employment training and youth training scheme/youth training in training in Scotland 1987 to 1991

  Date

  Employment training

  YTS/Youth training

  March 1987

  1—

  38,000

  March 1988

  1—

  46,000

  March 1989

  21,200

  49,800

  March 1990

  26,400

  45,100

  March 1991

  25,200

  237,000

  1 Not collected—employment training programme did not start until September 1988.

  2 Excludes figures for the national providers unit provision.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the financial contribution of employers to youth training and employment training.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: My right hon. Friend does not seek to obtain detailed information about financial contributions made by employers, either in money or in kind, to the youth training or employment training programmes. It is in the interest of employers to contribute towards training costs and they are encouraged by local enterprise companies to do so. Furthermore, local enterprise companies work to maximise employer contributions through their contracts with providers.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many people in Scotland are currently on youth training and employment training schemes;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the arrangements made for the independent national monitoring of the quality of youth training and employment training schemes;

  (3) how many people on youth training and employment training schemes in Scotland have employee status.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: In Scotland responsibility for monitoring the delivery of youth training and employment training rests with Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these two bodies to write to the hon. Member with the information that he has requested about the numbers and status of people on the youth training and employment training schemes.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) persons aged 16 years and (b) persons aged 17 years who are on youth training schemes are classified as special needs trainees; and how the numbers and percentages have changed in the years that youth training has been in operation.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 20 December 1991]: For years 1986–87 to 1989–90 it is not possible to identify precisely by age the numbers and percentages of trainees
  548
  with special training needs in Scotland. However, it is possible to identify the numbers of trainees in respect of which payments to providers were made at rates equivalent to special training needs rates. These numbers will include some payments made in respect of trainees who did not have special training needs and will contain instances of double counting. On this basis for each of the years the estimated number and proportion of trainees for whom payments at special training needs rates were made are:

  Trainees aged 16 years

  Trainees aged 17 years

  Estimated number

  Per cent.

  Estimated number

  Per cent.

  1986–97

  105

  0·4

  56

  1·0

  1987–88

  117

  0·5

  61

  1·1

  1988–89

  167

  0·7

  94

  1·2

  1989–90

  1,403

  6·7

  364

  5·7

  No information is available about payments made to providers in respect of trainees with special training needs in 1990–91; and Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise do not collect data on special needs trainees broken down by age. That information will therefore not be available for 1991–92 and later years.

  Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are required to collect data on the total number of trainees with special needs. The proportion of Youth Training starts by trainees who have special training needs which are expected this year, and the targets which have been set for 1992–93, are as follows:

  1991–92 (per cent.)

  1992–93 (per cent.)

  Scottish Enterprise

  19

  20

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  21

  21

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many youth training placements in electrical and electronic engineering in Scotland went(a) to young men and (b) to young women; and if he will provide comparable figures for health, community and personal services placements.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many full-time(a) male and (b) female jobs there were in Scotland in June 1979; and how many there are now.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: For the years requested it is not possible to obtain separate figures for a number of male full-time employees. Figures are available for the total number of male employees. In June 1979 there were 1,205,191 male employees in employment. In June 1991 there were 1,014,677 male employees in employment. There were 565,202 full-time female employees in employment in June 1979 and 529,763 full-time female employees in employment in June 1991.

  Medical Facilities (Western Isles)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any consideration is being given to the construction or development of new medical facilities in the Uists or Benbecula.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: This is a matter for the board.

  Self-employment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many self-employed people there have been in Scotland each quarter since 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The information is available on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information if necessary.

  Health Services (Remote Areas)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Health Advisory Council working group on the provision of health services to remote and island areas will extend its deadline for submissions beyond 31 January; and whether it intends to seek submissions from local health councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Evidence was requested on behalf of the working group in a letter sent on 3 December 1991 to a number of statutory bodies and organisations, including the Association of Scottish Local Health Councils. The letter asked for responses by 31 January 1992, and requested recipients foreseeing difficulty in meeting this deadline to advise the group's secretary accordingly.

  The association is currently undertaking consultation with local health councils and hopes to submit evidence to the group by the end of March, or failing that, by the end of April.

  In addition to the collection of written evidence, the group plans to visit the areas covered by its remit, including the Western Isles. The visit programmes will include both formal meetings with representatives of the health service and open sessions for members of the local community.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many manufacturing jobs there were in each region of Scotland in June and December of every year since 1979.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The information requested is available only from the census of employment which is conducted by the Employment Department. The census of employment is not carried out annually. Information is given in the table for the years in the required period in which a census of employment was conducted.

  Total employees in employment by Scottish region 1981, 1984, 1987, 1989

  Region

  Manufacturing employees in employment

  1981

  1984

  1987

  1989

  Borders

  12,940

  12,610

  12,260

  12,010

  Central

  31,090

  22,780

  23,080

  23,450

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,240

  11,300

  10,920

  11,790

  550

  Region

  Manufacturing employees in employment

  1981

  1984

  1987

  1989

  Fife

  39,980

  35,810

  32,610

  32,730

  Grampian

  36,780

  35,230

  34,130

  36,220

  Highland

  12,410

  10,220

  9,020

  9,680

  Lothian

  66,200

  55,300

  56,130

  55,530

  Strathclyde

  249,840

  215,350

  194,890

  187,880

  Tayside

  37,050

  32,090

  31,010

  31,090

  Islands

  3,330

  2,960

  2,900

  2,110

  Scotland

  501,790

  433,690

  406,950

  402,480

  Source: Employment Department Census of Employment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Deficit
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give the figures for the United Kingdom trade deficit in the last three quarters for which the adjusted figures are available.

  Mr. Redwood
  United Kingdom current account trade deficits in the second, third and fourth quarters of 1991 were £145 million, £1,342 million and £1,585 million respectively.

  Industrial Policy
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet representatives of the northern region CBI to discuss industrial policy.

  Mr. Lilley
  I next plan to meet representatives of the northern region CBI later this month to discuss a range of business matters.

  Innovation
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the new innovation unit within his Department.

  Mr. Leigh
  I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that DTI's innovation unit, launched last October by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is proceeding well with its task of promoting innovation as the key to wealth creation. On 18 December last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the appointment of five top business men to the unit. All five have hands-on experience of innovation in industry and will use that experience to deal directly with firms, higher education institutes, schools and local media.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from business men about the introduction by his Department of the Spur scheme, for innovation by small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Mr. Leigh
  Business response to Spur (Support for Products Under Research) has been most positive and to date 90 offers of grant have been made to companies throughout Great Britain. The scheme has also been warmly welcomed by the Confederation of British Industry, the independent Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACOST) and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Britain's share of the Kuwaiti market since the end of the Gulf war.

  Mr. Lilley
  According to the information we have, Britain regained its pre-Gulf war OECD market share within two months of the end of hostilities. Our exports to Kuwait increased in value by nearly 30 per cent. in the second half of 1991 compared with the second half of 1989 (the most recent comparable period). United Kingdom companies gained at least £500 million worth of reconstruction business in Kuwait last year. The United Kingdom is now Kuwait's largest European supplier.

  Manufactured Exports
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's share of manufactured exports by developed nations over the last five years.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's share of manufactured exports by developed nations over the last five years.

  Mr. Leigh
  As the table shows, the United Kingdom's share of total OECD exports of manufactured goods increased during the period 1985–90. Our share has been broadly stable since the early 1980s, after decades of decline.

  United Kingdom share of the value of the OECD's exports of manufactured goods

  Percentage

  1985

  7·2

  1986

  7·0

  1987

  7·4

  1988

  7·6

  1989

  7·5

  1990

  7·8

  Sources: United Nations Monthly Bulletin, OECD International Monetary Fund, DTI.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the CBI to discuss manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. I next plan to meet representatives of the CBI on 19 February.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist British manufacturing industry to become more cost-effective and competitive.

  Mr. Redwood
  Over the last 10 years British manufacturing industry has increased its productivity by over a half and its exports by over two-thirds, faster than any of our major competitors. I plan to ensure that these substantial improvements in competitiveness are sustained by continuing to improve the climate in which British 552
  business operates, by reducing burdens on business and stimulating investment, innovation and the spread of best practice, by encouraging vigorous competition at home and by working for trade liberalisation and promoting our exports world wide.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will meet representatives of the east midlands regional CBI to discuss policy towards manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters.

  Engineering
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next hopes to meet representatives of the engineering sector to discuss exports.

  Mr. Lilley
  My DTI ministerial colleagues and I have frequent contacts with representatives of the engineering industry on a range of matters.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next intends to meet representatives of the European Commission to discuss regional policy.

  Mr. Leigh
  I have at present no plans for such a discussion.

  Manufacturing Balance of Trade
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when Britain last had a surplus on its manufacturing trade; and what forecast he has made of the manufacturing trade balance for the future.

  Mr. Redwood
  Britain last had a surplus on its manufacturing trade in 1982. Since 1982 the value of United Kingdom exports of manufactures has increased by 131 per cent. My Department does not make forecasts of the trade balance.

  Self-catering Accommodation
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to be in a position to respond to the concerns of those involved in the self-catering accommodation sector over EC guidelines with regard to fabric content standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Commission decided, in May 1991 to suspend work on the draft EC Directive on the Fire Behaviour of Upholstered Furniture pending further research into the fire characteristics of materials used in furniture and into test methods. The purpose of this research, as discussed at a consultative meeting in Brussels on 29 January, is to support requirements imposing limits on the burning behaviour of upholstered furniture and the associated emission of smoke and toxic gases. We have made it clear to the Commission that we will retain our Furniture Regulations until a regime consistent with the level of protection in the United Kingdom is available under the directive.
  553
  As a quite separate issue, the application of the United Kingdom's Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations to self-catering holiday accommodation has necessitated a wide-ranging review of the legal position with the involvement of other Departments. I am consulting with colleagues about a possible way forward and I hope to be able to make some positive proposals shortly.

  Regional Assistance (North-east England)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on regional assistance for the north-east of England.

  Mr. Leigh
  Of the four North-East region counties, Cleveland, Durham, and Tyne and Wear have assisted area status, as does the Morpeth and A shington travel-to-work area in Northumberland. For 1990–91, expenditure on regional selective assistance, regional enterprise grants, regional development grants and by English Estates in the region amounted to £84 million. In addition, £97 million has been committed between 1989 and 1991 under ERDF programmes for the region, which also has access to ECSC loans.

  Telephone Boxes
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with OFTEL relating to the increase in the number of working telephone boxes since 1987.

  Mr. Redwood
  I meet the Director General of OFTEL from time to time to discuss a wide range of telecommunications issues. I welcome the fact that BT now has approximately 100,000 public telephone boxes compared to 78,000 in 1987, and that 96 per cent. are in working order compared to 77 per cent. in 1987. There are also approximately 5,000 Mercury telephone boxes of which 98 per cent. are in working order.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.

  Mr. Lilley
  The reduction of inflation is the precondition of renewed sustainable growth.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has recently received about manufacturing output.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received the recent excellent report by the CBI's manufacturing advisory group which showed that there has been a transformation for the better in manufacturing performance during the 1980s.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the British bicycle industry about Chinese imports; and what action he has taken to maintain fair trade in bicycles.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have received a number of such representations. The European Commission is currently 554
  investigating an anti-dumping complaint brought by the European industry against imports from China. The case for introducing a Community-wide import quota is also under consideration. The treatment of Chinese bicycles under the Community's generalised scheme of preferences is kept under review.

  Perfume Exports
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the level of imports and exports of perfumes for each of the last five years defined by country.

  Mr. Redwood
  The available information is given in the following table. The value of United Kingdom exports in 1991, £62 million, was 3 per cent. higher than in 1990, while imports fell by 5 per cent. to £116 million.

  United Kingdom Trade in Perfumes and Toilet Waters1 (Countries ranked by 1991 trade) Imports, £ million

  Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  France

  68·7

  73·0

  83·4

  66·1

  United States of America

  6·7

  12·7

  11·6

  14·7

  Netherlands

  2·5

  4·2

  6·4

  8·0

  Germany2

  10·0

  2·2

  3·3

  6·2

  Switzerland

  6·6

  5·2

  6·2

  5·1

  Others

  10·1

  10·6

  11·0

  16·2

  Total

  104·7

  107·9

  121·9

  116·2

  Exports, £ million

  France

  4·8

  7·0

  11·6

  9·2

  Germany2

  5·9

  4·9

  5·7

  6·3

  United States of America

  1·8

  3·3

  5·2

  6·0

  Italy

  4·8

  4·4

  5·2

  3·7

  Saudi Arabia

  3·3

  4·5

  4·5

  3·2

  Irish Republic

  2·2

  1·7

  1·7

  2·7

  Dubai

  1·4

  1·5

  1·6

  2·6

  Others

  29·7

  26·8

  24·6

  28·4

  Total

  54·0

  54·1

  60·3

  61·9

  1 Perfumes and toilet waters are defined as item 553·1 of the Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 3.

  2 Germany includes the former East Germany throughout.

  Source: Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on negotiations concerning intellectual property rights in respect of perfumes during the current GATT round.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government welcome the progress made in the GATT Uruguay round negotiations on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs). The GATT Director-General's proposals for improved international rules for the protection and enforcement of all main forms of intellectual property should benefit United Kingdom trading interests. The perfume industry stands to benefit particularly from his proposals for strengthened multilateral rules to combat trade in counterfeit goods and to protect undisclosed trade information.

  Computer Misuse
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce proposals to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to take into account the effect of viruses and hackers on databases where electronic data interchange is in use.

  Mr. Leigh
  The Secretary of State has no plans to introduce proposals to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990. Since the passing of that Act, the DTI has monitored its application, and has not identified any features of electronic data interchange which would indicate the need for such amendment.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate the fees charged by Touche Ross with regard to the Bank of Credit and Commerce International with a view to introducing further safeguards for creditors.

  Mr. Redwood
  I set out in a reply on 20 January at column 58, the means by which a liquidator's remuneration must be approved, that is by the creditors acting either through a liquidation committee or in general meeting, with recourse available to the court. In the case of BCCI, this procedure will apply to the remuneration of Touche Ross as liquidators after 14 January 1992, the date of the winding up order. The procedure provides safeguards in control by the creditors who have a financial interest and by the courts who are independent of the liquidator.

  The Secretary of State does not have a role in deciding the amount of remuneration which should be paid, but has the power if necessary to audit a liquidator's accounts in order to ensure that the approved amount has been drawn.

  The remuneration of Touche Ross as provisional liquidators, that is up to 14 January, must be approved by the court and I understand that their bill will shortly be lodged with the court for approval.

  Environmental Claims
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government are taking to monitor and control false and misleading environmental claims on products sold in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  Environmental claims about goods and services are generally subject to the provisions of the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968. Enforcement is the responsibility of local trading standards officers.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each of the regulatory bodies to which copies of the inspectors' report on House of Fraser were sent prior to, or at the time of, publication, and the conclusions each body has reported to him on that report.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 6 February 1992]: My predecessor sent copies of the inspectors' report to the following regulatory bodies: the Bank of England, the takeover panel, the Law Society, the Securities and
  556
  Investments Board, the Securities Association and FIMBRA. Copies were disclosed to the Bank of England and the takeover panel prior to publication of the report. The remaining bodies were passed copies on publication.

  My Department's memoranda of November and December 1990 to the Trade and Industry Committee gave information on action taken at that time by regulatory bodies following their consideration of the House of Fraser report. These were published in March 1991. Subsequently the following further information has become available.

  For the Bank of England the Governor gave evidence to the Committee in 1991. FIMBRA has informed the Department that it has nothing to add to the evidence given to the Committee by the Bank of England, which is the lead regulator for Harrods Bank.

  As for the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, as set out in my Department's December 1990 memorandum the report of the solicitors instructed by the Law Society to consider the part played by Herbert Smith in the matters dealt with in the inspectors' report was considered by the adjudication committee in November 1990. The adjudication committee considered that there was no evidence of professional misconduct by Herbert Smith.

  The same report was considered in January 1991 by the standards and guidance committee of the Law Society, responsible for setting professional standards. That Committee considered that there was no evidence to justify changes to the solicitors' practice rules or to the principles contained in the Guide to the Professional Conduct of Solicitors. The committee was of the view that any guidance on the issues raised by the House of Fraser case should be by way of "best practice", and as such was a matter for the relevant specialist committee, that is the company law committee.

  The company law committee, which is composed of specialist practitioners engaged in private practice, commerce and industry, has set out its views on the company law issues raised by the inspectors' report in the Law Society's memorandum submitted to the Trade and Industry Committee in April 1990. The company law committee had no comments to make on the conduct or regulatory issues raised by the case. The Committee is of the view that professional conduct guidance on such a technical area of practice would be inappropriate. In practice the lessons to be learnt from cases such as House of Fraser will have been incorporated into the internal practice procedures adopted by the large City firms involved in such takeovers and mergers. On that basis, the committee was therefore content to let the matter rest.

  The takeover panel has informed my Department that on 23 January 1992 the High Court dismissed the Fayed brothers' application for leave for judicial review of the decisions of the panel and its appeal committee in December 1991 not to grant an adjournment of the hearing of disciplinary charges being brought against the Fayed brothers by the panel executive. The decision of the High Court is subject to an appeal by the Fayeds.

  Small Firms Merit Award
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many companies, by standard planning region, who were successful under the small firms merit award for research and technology stage I, were successful in stage II;
  557
  (2) how many applications he received from companies in each standard planning region under the small firms merit award for research and technology stage II; how many were approved in each region; and how many had been successful in stage I.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The stage 2 SMART competition is open only to those who won stage 1 the previous year. Firms unsuccessful in stage 1 cannot enter stage 2. In 1991 there were 134 entries for the stage 2 competition, 103 of which have been successful as follows:

  Region/territory

  Number of entries

  Number successful

  East

  14

  10

  East Midlands

  16

  11

  North East

  5

  4

  Northern Ireland

  4

  4

  North West

  11

  9

  Scotland

  16

  13

  South East

  22

  12

  South West

  14

  12

  Wales

  12

  11

  West Midlands

  11

  9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9

  8

  Research and Development
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by travel-to-work areas the amounts of money allocated to companies from his Department's research and development budget.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: The following is, for each of the last two completed financial years and the current year to date, a breakdown by DTI region and travel-to-work area, of DTI innovation budget grants paid to companies.

  Please note, however, that the majority of the innovation budget is devoted to support for collaborative R and D projects where payments are made to one of the participating organisations (project leader) who distributes the grant to the other collaborators on the DTI's behalf. In these cases only one travel-to-work area is recorded on the DTI's database, but much of the money shown to be going to a particular travel-to-work area will be passed on to other companies, in other travel-to-work areas and possibly in other regions.

  Department of Trade and Industry innovation grants paid to companies in 1989–90

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid

  (£)

  East Midlands

  Boston

  12,500

  Burton-on-Trent

  48,249

  Chesterfield

  8,092

  Derby

  15,420

  Gainsborough

  147,037

  Leicester

  90,363

  Lincoln

  14,309

  Loughborough and Coalville

  94,191

  Mansfield

  2,603

  Matlock

  70,296

  Northampton

  923,931

  Nottingham

  361,565

  Rugby and Daventry

  26,676

  Worksop

  6,261

  North East

  558

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid

  (£)

  Alnwick and Amble

  25,000

  Bishop Auckland

  19,545

  Darlington

  8,925

  Durham

  63,211

  Hartlepool

  74,537

  Hexham

  11,282

  Middlesbrough

  326,886

  Morpeth and Ashington

  55,297

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  460,653

  South Tyneside

  35,275

  Stockton-on-Tees

  516,838

  Sunderland

  130,183

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  169,218

  Coleraine

  12,500

  Craigavon

  51,781

  Omagh

  8,147

  North West

  Accrington and Rossendale

  62,931

  Barrow-in-Furness

  19,773

  Blackburn

  24,676

  Blackpool

  8,635

  Bolton and Bury

  35,374

  Burnley

  16,583

  Crewe

  68,898

  Hexham

  26,838

  Liverpool

  215,731

  Macclesfield

  407,481

  Manchester

  1,884,748

  Northwich

  5,676

  Preston

  139,309

  Sheffield

  14,733

  Warrington

  33,994

  Widnes and Runcorn

  50,572

  Wigan and St. Helens

  117,479

  Wirral and Chester

  186,162

  Workington

  26,163

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  133,236

  Ayr

  77,627

  Bathgate

  155,756

  Dumbarton

  15,634

  Dundee

  9,032

  Dunoon and Bute

  9,487

  Edinburgh

  391,596

  Glasgow

  183,908

  Greenock

  12,500

  Haddington

  12,500

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  19,375

  Inverness

  31,061

  Kelso and Jedburgh

  2,551

  Kirkcaldy

  14,637

  Lanarkshire

  23,015

  Perth

  17,070

  Skye and Wester Ross

  8,414

  St. Andrews

  25,000

  Stirling

  27,320

  South East

  Andover

  36,158

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  442,225

  Banbury

  0

  Basingstoke and Alton

  58,278

  Bedford

  119,730

  Brighton

  97,663

  Cambridge

  649,306

  Canterbury

  8,339

  Chelmsford and Braintree

  501,076

  Chichester

  63,682

  Colchester

  114,124

  Crawley

  1,480,580

  Eastbourne

  7,249

  Great Yarmouth

  284,587

  Guildford and Aldershot

  883,189

  559

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid

  (£)

  Hastings

  221,996

  Haverhill

  25,667

  Heathrow

  1,577,484

  Hertford and Harlow

  750,976

  Hitchin and Letchworth

  49,140

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  63,099

  Ipswich

  44,919

  Isle of Wight

  58,713

  London

  3,278,634

  Lowestoft

  1,875

  Medway and Maidstone

  206,215

  Milton Keynes

  8,585

  Newbury

  271,720

  Newmarket

  54,686

  Norwich

  443,746

  Oxford

  1,901,148

  Peterborough

  188,607

  Portsmouth

  232,383

  Reading

  351,403

  Slough

  622,636

  Southampton

  60,560

  Southend

  122,119

  Sudbury

  8,025

  Thanet

  16,109

  Tunbridge Wells

  22,830

  Watford and Luton

  122,515

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  114,718

  Wisbech

  4,582

  Woodbridge and Leiston

  114,474

  Worthing

  95,211

  South West

  Barnstaple and Infracombe

  33,720

  Bath

  285,027

  Bournemouth

  26,053

  Bristol

  497,207

  Chard

  74,652

  Cheltenham

  0

  Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye

  42,152

  Cirencester

  111,369

  Devizes

  24,252

  Dorchester and Weymouth

  19,137

  Evesham

  74,268

  Falmouth

  15,129

  Honiton and Axminster

  32,509

  Launceston

  12,500

  Plymouth

  141,473

  Poole

  187,824

  Shaftesbury

  12,449

  South Molton

  18,008

  Stroud

  122,672

  Swindon

  118,420

  Taunton

  125,476

  Torbay

  26,303

  Trowbridge and Frome

  43,954

  Truro

  13,371

  Wareham and Swanage

  19,375

  Yeovil

  24,925

  Wales

  Aberdare

  26,304

  Aberystwyth

  36,038

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  56,266

  Cardiff

  252,928

  Carmarthen

  20,035

  Conwy and Colwyn

  7,776

  Denbigh

  32,250

  Holyhead

  9,846

  Llanelli

  12,500

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  28,162

  Monmouth

  25,000

  Neath and Port Talbot

  18,796

  Newport

  18,384

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  783

  Porthmadog and Ffestiniog

  19,930

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  23,874

  Swansea

  94,815

  560

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid

  (£)

  Wrexham

  12,242

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,348,247

  Burton-on-Trent

  2,745

  Coventry and Hinckley

  277,951

  Dudley and Sandwell

  292,395

  Evesham

  77,141

  Hereford and Leominster

  30,655

  Kidderminster

  66,716

  Leek

  14,616

  Malvern and Ledbury

  41,322

  Rugby and Daventry

  1,784,508

  Stafford

  85,488

  Stoke

  48,613

  Walsall

  32,335

  Warwick

  49,341

  Whitchurch and Market Drayton

  12,500

  Wolverhampton

  54,375

  Worcester

  23,866

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Bradford

  221,890

  Calderdale

  5,958

  Doncaster

  220,367

  Harrogate

  85,307

  Hull

  1,097,784

  Leeds

  649,752

  Malton

  21,400

  Richmondshire

  3,166

  Ripon

  10,125

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  41,829

  Scarborough and Filey

  41,485

  Scunthorpe

  37,175

  Sheffield

  213,782

  Thirsk

  26,648

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  21,292

  York

  57,073

  DTI innovation grants paid to companies in 1990–91

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  East Midlands

  Bicester

  21,797

  Boston

  8,975

  Burton-on-Trent

  21,439

  Corby

  25,000

  Derby

  61,629

  Gainsborough

  16,121

  Kettering and Market Harborough

  22,233

  Leicester

  208,042

  Lincoln

  18,935

  Loughborough and Coalville

  197,256

  Mansfield

  16,113

  Matlock

  19,150

  Northampton

  248,134

  Nottingham

  349,521

  Wellingborough and Rushden

  8,705

  Worksop

  1,362

  North East

  Alnwick and Amble

  50,000

  Bishop Auckland

  17,955

  Durham

  35,833

  Hartlepool

  54,210

  Middlesbrough

  84,370

  Morpeth and Ashington

  86,673

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  364,740

  South Tyneside

  4,865

  Stockton-on-Tees

  94,806

  Sunderland

  145,448

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  205,252

  Coleraine

  25,000

  561

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  Craigavon

  14,244

  Newry

  28,435

  North West

  Accrington and Rossendale

  29,723

  Barrow-in-Furness

  33,040

  Blackburn

  40,016

  Blackpool

  24,880

  Bolton and Bury

  26,899

  Burnley

  20,711

  Crewe

  41,091

  Kendal

  12,500

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  36,403

  Liverpool

  114,216

  Macclesfield

  249,342

  Manchester

  1,710,431

  Northwich

  17,493

  Preston

  121,688

  Rochdale

  19,344

  Sheffield

  31,121

  Warrington

  25,000

  Widnes and Runcorn

  131,225

  Wigan and St. Helens

  48,768

  Wirral and Chester

  60,589

  Workington

  31,966

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  109,247

  Ayr

  119,373

  Bathgate

  31,000

  Dumbarton

  12,500

  Dunoon and Bute

  18,750

  Edinburgh

  360,628

  Glasgow

  219,605

  Greenock

  36,190

  Haddington

  25,000

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  60,625

  Inverness

  16,497

  Kilmarnock

  12,500

  Kirkcaldy

  47,006

  Lanarkshire

  11,482

  Oban

  8,350

  Perth

  6,809

  St. Andrews

  60,126

  Stirling

  11,634

  South East

  Andover

  25,389

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  704,964

  Basingstoke and Alton

  50,941

  Bedford

  95,061

  Brighton

  91,097

  Cambridge

  904,143

  Canterbury

  3,052

  Chelmsford and Braintree

  54,588

  Chichester

  20,839

  Crawley

  223,136

  Cromer and North Walsham

  6,897

  Great Yarmouth

  380,061

  Guildford and Aldershot

  707,543

  Hastings

  132,351

  Haverhill

  21,618

  Heathrow

  1,213,794

  Hertford and Harlow

  768,127

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  48,772

  Ipswich

  57,379

  Isle of Wight

  35,000

  London

  2,472,532

  Medway and Maidstone

  147,234

  Milton Keynes

  132,506

  Newbury

  266,875

  Newmarket

  17,560

  Norwich

  294,410

  Oxford

  1,378,564

  Peterborough

  163,462

  Portsmouth

  253,856

  Reading

  287,316

  562

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid £

  Slough

  841,322

  Southampton

  391,458

  Southend

  449,903

  Sudbury

  9,774

  Swindon

  22,899

  Tunbridge Wells

  19,115

  Watford and Luton

  150,331

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  154,347

  Woodbridge and Leiston

  180,700

  Worthing

  40,834

  South West

  Barnstaple and Ilfracombe

  54,457

  Bath

  166,117

  Bournemouth

  10,102

  Bristol

  1,744,611

  Chard

  22,860

  Cheltenham

  80,243

  Chippenham

  78,203

  Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye

  44,624

  Cirencester

  49,563

  Dartmouth and Kingsbridge

  12,500

  Devizes

  57,927

  Dorchester and Weymouth

  50,000

  Evesham

  49,073

  Exeter

  32,006

  Falmouth

  24,640

  Gloucester

  14,498

  Honiton and Axminster

  29,991

  Launceston

  21,578

  Newton Abbot

  19,070

  Okehampton

  16,950

  Plymouth

  210,057

  Poole

  45,296

  Salisbury

  35,388

  South Molton

  13,741

  Stroud

  182,660

  Swindon

  86,709

  Taunton

  34,952

  Torbay

  108,531

  Trowbridge and Frome

  27,644

  Wareham and Swanage

  5,170

  Wells

  22,010

  Weston-super-Mare

  57,327

  Yeovil

  13,500

  Wales

  Aberytswyth

  17,067

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  66,662

  Blaenau Gwent Abergavenny

  8,363

  Bridgend

  12,500

  Cardiff

  336,000

  Carmarthen

  37,405

  Denbigh

  25,000

  Llandrindod Wells

  18,750

  Llanelli

  44,096

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  7,888

  Neath and Port Talbot

  25,000

  Newport

  36,857

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  38,167

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  26,881

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  37,248

  Swansea

  291,882

  Wrexham

  16,604

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  1,265,081

  Coventry and Hinckley

  319,019

  Dudley and Sandwell

  269,911

  Evesham

  129,437

  Hereford and Leominister

  74,132

  Kidderminster

  208,980

  Malvern and Ledbury

  51,288

  Rugby and Daventry

  735,074

  Stafford

  26,724

  Stoke

  228,938

  Telford and Bridgnorth

  23,411

  563

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  Walsall

  71,898

  Warwick

  141,095

  Whitchurch and Market Drayton

  9,103

  Wolverhampton

  23,091

  Worcester

  5,426

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  20,767

  Bradford

  221,061

  Doncaster

  71,250

  Harrogate

  66,931

  Hull

  713,904

  Leeds

  553,085

  Malton

  26,282

  Northallerton

  14,644

  Richmondshire

  992

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  20,875

  Scarborough and Filey

  81,961

  Scunthorpe

  24,129

  Sheffield

  275,165

  Whitby

  23,579

  York

  20,525

  DTI innovation grants paid to companies in 1991–92

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid £

  East Midlands

  Alfreton and Ashfield

  22,590

  Bicester

  13,201

  Burton-on-Trent

  16,062

  Derby

  115,040

  Gainsborough

  46,842

  Grantham

  15,000

  Kettering and Marker Harborough

  28,767

  Leicester

  102,536

  Lincoln

  123,029

  Loughborough and Coalville

  336,580

  Matlock

  24,886

  Northampton

  536,007

  Nottingham

  353,599

  Rugby and Daventry

  125,000

  Stamford

  4,375

  Wellingborough and Rushden

  33,640

  North East

  Durham

  210,632

  Hartlepool

  7,742

  Middlesbrough

  30,712

  Morpeth and Ashington

  73,234

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  577,172

  Stockton-on-Tees

  39,783

  Sunderland

  70,508

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  223,122

  Coleraine

  42,500

  Cookstown

  27,182

  Craigavon

  49,519

  Newry

  24,911

  North West

  Barrow-in-Furness

  30,092

  Blackburn

  65,520

  Blackpool

  157,037

  Bolton and Bury

  6,917

  Buxton

  29,628

  Carlisle

  15,000

  Crewe

  47,203

  Kendal

  25,000

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  33,160

  Liverpool

  196,043

  Macclesfield

  137,416

  Manchester

  1,371,933

  Northwich

  29,917

  Oldham

  36,587

  Rochdale

  18,156

  564

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid £

  Sheffield

  19,627

  Warrington

  21,401

  Widnes and Runcorn

  318,716

  Wigan and St. Helens

  15,000

  Wirral and Chester

  83,489

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  166,513

  Ayr

  47,430

  Badenoch

  15,000

  Bathgate

  72,871

  Dunoon and Bute

  64,147

  Edinburgh

  325,647

  Glasgow

  222,395

  Greenock

  36,644

  Haddington

  8,725

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  7,500

  Inverness

  48,125

  Kilmarnock

  31,875

  Kirkcaldy

  78,868

  Lanarkshire

  21,878

  Oban

  15,000

  Perth

  1,202

  Skye and Wester Ross

  15,000

  St. Andrews

  76,724

  Stirling

  1,566

  South East

  Andover

  68,204

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  258,419

  Basingstoke and Alton

  98,262

  Bedford

  111,698

  Brighton

  22,821

  Cambridge

  1,167,533

  Canterbury

  41,794

  Chelmsford and Braintree

  111,199

  Chichester

  10,809

  Crawley

  623,105

  Diss

  11,820

  Great Yarmouth

  15,181

  Guildford and Aldershot

  836,331

  Hastings

  22,672

  Heathrow

  622,538

  Hertford and Harlow

  586,180

  Hitchin and Letchworth

  27,535

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  21,458

  Ipswich

  109,390

  Isle of Wight

  20,477

  London

  1,239,879

  Medway and Maidstone

  48,365

  Milton Keynes

  101,033

  Newbury

  233,995

  Norwich

  69,708

  Oxford

  663,369

  Peterborough

  184,786

  Portsmouth

  579,821

  Reading

  534,586

  Slough

  255,596

  Southampton

  389,374

  Southend

  61,101

  Swindon

  14,524

  Tunbridge Wells

  3,149

  Watford and Luton

  228,614

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  63,493

  Woodbridge and Leiston

  192,636

  Worthing

  62,964

  South West

  Barnstaple and Ilfracombe

  21,772

  Bath

  139,004

  Bideford

  15,000

  Bridport

  15,000

  Bristol

  469,251

  Chard

  6,032

  Cheltenham

  122,909

  Chippenham

  71,119

  Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye

  3,150

  Cirencester

  49,274

  565

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid £

  Dartmouth and Kingsbridge

  19,375

  Evesham

  27,460

  Exeter

  38,041

  Falmouth

  73,393

  Gloucester

  15,000

  Helston

  15,000

  Honiton and Axminster

  54,572

  Launceston

  3,422

  Newton Abbot

  18,430

  Okehampton

  6,591

  Penzance and St. Ives

  21,359

  Plymouth

  207,492

  Poole

  57,036

  Salisbury

  53,086

  South Molton

  5,735

  Stroud

  108,946

  Swindon

  107,621

  Taunton

  54,841

  Torbay

  49,653

  Trowbridge arid Frome

  59,960

  Wells

  20,504

  Weston-Super-Mare

  217,062

  Yeovil

  25,941

  Wales

  Aberystwyth

  13,347

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  28,059

  Blaenau Gwent Abergavenny

  24,296

  Bridgend

  25,000

  Cardiff

  301,562

  Carmarthen

  43,439

  Conwy and Colwyn

  44,312

  Denbigh

  32,820

  Llandrindod Wells

  18,750

  Llanelli

  65,954

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  76,217

  Neath and Port Talbot

  44,649

  Newport

  113,126

  Newtown

  25,469

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  49,333

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  10,619

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  57,680

  Swansea

  320,041

  Wrexham

  16,103

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  794,440

  Burton-on-Trent

  8,288

  Coventry and Hinckley

  438,912

  Dudley and Sandwell

  83,981

  Evesham

  52,905

  Hereford and Leominster

  67,927

  Kidderminster

  5,625

  Malvern and Ledbury

  243,301

  Oswestry

  15,000

  Rugby and Daventry

  102,597

  Stafford

  23,622

  Stoke

  208,920

  Telford and Bridgnorth

  63,455

  Walsall

  30,602

  Warwick

  12,850

  Wolverhampton

  32,158

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  38,377

  Bradford

  174,576

  Bridlington and Driffield

  14,815

  Calderdale

  164,627

  Goole and Selby

  18,099

  Harrogate

  90,647

  Huddersfield

  11,688

  Hull

  1,003,690

  Leeds

  587,587

  Malton

  27,983

  Northallerton

  28,009

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  26,338

  Scarborough and Filey

  155,244

  Sheffield

  127,840

  566

  Region and travel-to-work area

  Amount paid £

  Whitby

  13,921

  York

  51,985

  DTI innovation grants paid to companies in 1989–92

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  East Midlands

  Alfreton and Ashfield

  22,590

  Bicester

  34,997

  Boston

  21,475

  Burton-on-Trent

  85,750

  Chesterfield

  8,092

  Corby

  25,000

  Derby

  192,089

  Gainsborough

  210,000

  Grantham

  15,000

  Kettering and Market Harborough

  51,000

  Leicester

  400,941

  Lincoln

  156,272

  Loughborough and Coalville

  628,028

  Mansfield

  18,716

  Matlock

  114,331

  Northampton

  1,708,072

  Nottingham

  1,064,685

  Rugby and Daventry

  151,676

  Stamford

  4,375

  Wellingborough and Rushden

  42,345

  Worksop

  7,623

  North East

  Alnwick and Amble

  75,000

  Bishop Auckland

  37,500

  Darlington

  8,925

  Durham

  309,676

  Hartlepool

  136,489

  Hexham

  11,282

  Middlesbrough

  441,968

  Morpeth and Ashington

  215,204

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,402,565

  South Tyneside

  40,140

  Stockton-on-Tees

  651,426

  Sunderland

  346,139

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  597,592

  Coleraine

  80,000

  Cookstown

  27,182

  Craigavon

  115,544

  Newry

  53,345

  Omagh

  8,147

  North West

  Accrington and Rossendale

  92,654

  Barrow-in-Furness

  82,905

  Blackburn

  130,212

  Blackpool

  190,552

  Bolton and Bury

  69,190

  Burnley

  37,294

  Buxton

  29,628

  Carlisle

  15,000

  Crewe

  157,192

  Hexham

  26,838

  Kendal

  37,500

  Lancaster and Morecambe

  69,563

  Liverpool

  525,989

  Macclesfield

  794,239

  Manchester

  4,967,112

  Northwich

  53,086

  Oldham

  36,587

  Preston

  260,997

  Rochdale

  37,500

  Sheffield

  65,481

  Warrington

  80,395

  Widnes and Runcorn

  500,513

  Wigan and St. Helens

  181,247

  Wirral and Chester

  330,240

  567

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  Workington

  58,129

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  408,997

  Ayr

  244,429

  Badenoch

  15,000

  Bathgate

  259,627

  Dumbarton

  28,134

  Dundee

  9,032

  Dunoon and Bute

  92,384

  Edinburgh

  1,077,871

  Glasgow

  625,907

  Greenock

  85,334

  Haddington

  46,225

  Invergordon and Dingwall

  87,500

  Inverness

  95,683

  Kelso and Jedburgh

  2,551

  Kilmarnock

  44,375

  Kirkcaldy

  140,511

  Lanarkshire

  56,375

  Oban

  23,350

  Perth

  25,081

  Skye and Wester Ross

  23,414

  St. Andrews

  161,850

  Stirling

  40,521

  South East

  Andover

  129,750

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  1,405,607

  Banbury

  0

  Basingstoke and Alton

  207,481

  Bedford

  326,489

  Brighton

  211,580

  Cambridge

  2,720,982

  Canterbury

  53,185

  Chelmsford and Braintree

  666,862

  Chichester

  95,329

  Colchester

  114,124

  Crawley

  2,326,821

  Cromer and North Walsham

  6,897

  Diss

  11,820

  Eastbourne

  7,249

  Great Yarmouth

  679,830

  Guildford and Aldershot

  2,427,063

  Hastings

  377,019

  Haverhill

  47,285

  Heathrow

  3,413,817

  Hertford and Harlow

  2,105,284

  Hitchin and Letchworth

  76,675

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  133,329

  Ipswich

  211,688

  Isle of Wight

  114,190

  London

  6,991,045

  Lowestoft

  1,875

  Medway and Maidstone

  401,814

  Milton Keynes

  242,123

  Newbury

  772,590

  Newmarket

  72,246

  Norwich

  807,864

  Oxford

  3,943,081

  Peterborough

  536,856

  Portsmouth

  1 ,066,060

  Reading

  1,173,304

  Slough

  1,719,554

  Southampton

  841,392

  Southend

  633,124

  Sudbury

  17,799

  Swindon

  37,423

  Thanet

  16,109

  Tunbridge Wells

  45,094

  Watford and Luton

  501,459

  Winchester and Eastleigh

  332,557

  Wisbech

  4,582

  Woodbridge and Leiston

  487,811

  Worthing

  199,009

  568

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  South West

  Barnstaple and Ilfracombe

  109,950

  Bath

  590,148

  Bideford

  15,000

  Bournemouth

  36,155

  Bridport

  15,000

  Bristol

  2,711,069

  Chard

  103,544

  Cheltenham

  203,151

  Chippenham

  149,322

  Cinderford and Ross-on-Wye

  89,926

  Cirencester

  210,206

  Dartmouth and Kingsbridge

  31,875

  Devizes

  82,179

  Dorchester and Weymouth

  69,137

  Evesham

  150,801

  Exeter

  70,047

  Falmouth

  113,162

  Gloucester

  29,498

  Helston

  15,000

  Honiton and Axminster

  117,072

  Launceston

  37,500

  Newton Abbot

  37,500

  Okehampton

  23,540

  Penzance and St. Ives

  21,359

  Plymouth

  559,021

  Poole

  290,156

  Salisbury

  88,474

  Shaftesbury

  12,449

  South Molton

  37,485

  Stroud

  414,277

  Swindon

  312,751

  Taunton

  215,269

  Torbay

  184,487

  Trowbridge and Frome

  131,558

  Truro

  13,371

  Wareham and Swanage

  24,545

  Wells

  42,514

  Weston-super-Mare

  274,389

  Yeovil

  64,366

  Wales

  Aberdare

  26,304

  Aberystwyth

  66,453

  Bangor and Caernarfon

  150,987

  Blaenau Gwent Abergavenny

  32,659

  Bridgend

  37,500

  Cardiff

  890,490

  Carmarthen

  100,879

  Conwy and Colwyn

  52,088

  Denbigh

  90,070

  Holyhead

  9,846

  Llandrindod Wells

  37,500

  Llanelli

  122,550

  Merthyr and Rhymney

  112,267

  Monmouth

  25,000

  Neath and Port Talbot

  88,445

  Newport

  168,367

  Newtown

  25,469

  Pontypool and Cwmbran

  87,500

  Pontypridd and Rhondda

  38,283

  Porthmadog and Ffestiniog

  19,930

  Shotton, Flint and Rhyl

  118,802

  Swansea

  706,738

  Wrexham

  44,949

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  3,407,767

  Burton-on-Trent

  11,033

  Coventry and Hinckley

  1,035,882

  Dudley and Sandwell

  646,287

  Evesham

  259,483

  Hereford and Leominster

  172,714

  Kidderminster

  281,321

  Leek

  14,616

  Malvern and Ledbury

  335,911

  Oswestry

  15,000

  569

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  Rugby and Daventry

  2,622,180

  Stafford

  135,834

  Stoke

  486,471

  Telford and Bridgnorth

  86,866

  Walsall

  134,835

  Warwick

  203,286

  Whitchurch and Market Drayton

  21,603

  Wolverhampton

  109,624

  Worcester

  29,292

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  59,144

  Bradford

  617,527

  Bridlington and Driffield

  14,815

  Calderdale

  170,585

  Doncaster

  291,617

  Goole and Selby

  18,099

  570

  Region and travel to work area

  Amount paid

  £

  Harrogate

  242,885

  Huddersfield

  11,688

  Hull

  2,815,378

  Leeds

  1,790,424

  Malton

  75,664

  Northallerton

  42,654

  Richmondshire

  4,157

  Ripon

  10,125

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  89,041

  Scarborough and Filey

  278,690

  Scunthorpe

  61,304

  Sheffield

  616,788

  Thirsk

  26,648

  Wakefield and Dewsbury

  21,292

  Whitby

  37,500

  York

  129,582

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Lord Prentice
The Right Honourable Sir Reginald Ernest Prentice, Knight, having been created Baron Prentice, of Daventry in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hesketh and the Lord Lane of Horsell.
Lord Rix
Sir Brian Norman Roger Rix, Knight, MBE, having been created Baron Rix, of Whitehall in the City of Westminster and of Hornsea in Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Allen of Abbeydale and the Lord Renton.

Science and Engineering Research Council: Funding
3 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Science and Engineering Research Council has sufficient funds to carry out the purposes for which it was established.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, government grant-in-aid to the Science and Engineering Research Council for 1992–93 is £520.8 million. This represents a real terms increase since 1979–80 of 16 per cent. This will enable the council to continue to fund a programme of high-quality research, much of it world class, in accordance with its Royal Charter.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend try to persuade the Treasury that arbitrary interruptions, particularly reductions in funding, can be particularly damaging—indeed crippling—to scientific research? In particular, can my noble friend shed any light on why the council has failed to make any progress at all as regards the very helpful agreement made with the Russians in 1990 for collaboration in molecular electronics?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I suspect that the Treasury is more likely to tremble at the prospect of a visit from my noble friend Lord Peyton than from me. However, in this instance I cannot be described as the guilty party. The interruption in spend to which my noble friend referred was not caused by the Treasury but by SERC's own shortcomings in financial planning areas. That was confirmed by last year's report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which
716
acknowledged that SERC's difficulties were the result of shortcomings in the council's financial planning. The report states specifically that SERC had, "over-committed its available resources".
As regards the agreement with Russia to which my noble friend referred, there is no question of reneging on an agreement. The agreement on nanotechnology was an enabling agreement signed with the former Soviet Academy and the Soviet Science Society. SERC is not aware of any approaches made by the former Soviet Union for work to be carried out under this agreement. At present all such agreements with the previous Soviet Union agencies are now needing to be renegotiated with the relevant Russian or other agencies. I understand that SERC officials will be visiting Russia shortly to commence the necessary discussions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that nearly 50 per cent. of the applications for research grants which are alpha-rated through peer review are actually turned down through lack of funding? Does she agree that that suggests that SERC does not have enough funds to carry out the purposes for which it was set up?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will agree that the decision as to what SERC funds and what it rejects is very much its decision.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, purely for information, can my noble friend answer this question? I understand that the Medical Research Council is able to solicit funds from sources other than government. Can my noble friend say whether that is also true of the Science and Engineering Research Council or is it unable to do so?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. I shall find out and write to my noble and learned friend.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not really answer my question. The point is that SERC would like to fund many more of the alpha-rated proposals but is unable to do so. Is the Minister also aware that there is a Nobel laureate whom the SERC has had to turn down recently for research funding who is also a Member of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I well appreciate that there are difficult decisions to be made. But we have not discovered—I am sure that it applies to SERC too—the bottomless pit which allows every application to be accepted.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry—not a Nobel laureate, I might add. Is the noble Baroness aware of the scoring of only a 20 per cent. success rate? What steps are being taken to watch the liquidity of research councils? I have had 25 years' experience of sitting on them. They must not be allowed to get into a situation in which too few grants are terminating in any given year so as to enable them

717
to redeploy their financial resources. They are not chosen for skill in maintaining liquidity. They need help. What steps are the Government taking to give it to them?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Earl makes a very good point. There was a full review at SERC of the programmes and the operations of its financial planning. I am sure that the lessons from that have been well learnt and account taken.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I doubt very much if the Treasury is entitled to the white sheet in which my noble friend clothes it. Will she press for some explanation as to why until now the council has taken no initiative of its own under the very useful agreement made with the Russians, welcome as is the news that it is to do so now?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the political changes within the Soviet Union made the outlook uncertain. The situation has now become clear enough for the matter to be taken up again, and that will be done.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are all aware of the bottomless pit problem. Is the Minister aware that one of the few things we do in this country which is absolutely world class is research in chemistry? There is not the slightest doubt of our pre-eminence in that area. Can she not at least persuade the Treasury, given the many other crackpot things in which it invests money, that this may be an area for which a good deal more money might be found?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Science and Engineering Research Council covers a very wide remit with four broad subject areas: astronomy and planetary science, engineering, nuclear physics, and science. It has very difficult decisions to make in dividing spending between them.

British Technology Group
3.7 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans for the British Technology Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Government are proceeding with the privatisation of the British Technology Group by competitive sale. A number of consortia have been shortlisted and are currently preparing final bids. We intend to ensure that BTG is sold to a consortium which will continue BTG's traditional technology transfer business.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm or deny that one of the bidders is Research Corporation Technology of Arizona, the chief competitor of the British Technology Group? Can he also confirm or deny that British Technology Group is now being asked to supply the Arizona
718
company with confidential information which, if given, would destroy the trust of British researchers —particularly in the universities—in the British Technology Group?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can say that a number of consortia have submitted bids. I do not want to go into the details of them because that could prejudice the efforts of some of the leaders of the consortia to finalise their arrangements with their own investors. On the question of confidentiality, the matter here is that all bidders need equal access to information on which they can make their final bids. However, we recognise the importance of the issue of confidentiality to BTG. I am, therefore, pleased to be able to say that we have agreed procedures with BTG to protect the most commercially sensitive information, while at the same time allowing consortia access to information they need on which to base their bids.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord address himself to my noble friend's question? Is this American company to be provided with information about BTG simply because it is part of a consortium which may be, and I believe is, on the short list for consideration by the Government? Furthermore, is it the case that this American trust —which certainly does good business in America and is a competitor of BTG—will be allowed in one way or another to gain control of BTG as privatised, or are the Government now sticking firmly and categorically to the assurance that they gave to this House that nobody, directly or indirectly, will own more than 15 per cent. of a privatised BTG?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I can confirm that we stick to the assurances which we gave to the House. No one investor will have overall control; nor will it be sold to an industrial consortium. We have always made it plain that we shall sell BTG to the right consortium, one which will take a long-term view and which satisfies us that it will continue the traditional technology transfer activities of BTG. On the matter of confidentiality, I believe that I answered the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord but I must do so on this point. Is RCT a member of a consortium which is bidding for BTG? Why are the Government so coy about all this? If the answer is yes, will the Government give us an assurance that, indirectly or directly, there will be no question of this American company trust taking over control of BTG? If the answer is no, will the noble Lord please say so, honestly and plainly?
Lord Reay: My Lords, there is no question of any single company or body taking over control of BTG because it will be sold, as we have repeatedly said to Parliament, to a consortium. It is the case that not all parties have wished their interest to be disclosed while they finalise details of their consortium; and we respect that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that to use flotation in order to demand

719
information that has been supplied to BTG by research scientists all over this country is to betray their trust in BTG?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords, I do not think so. The British Technology Group Act gave authority to the Government to privatise BTG. It is now up to the Government to carry it out. We intend to conduct the negotiating process in confidence in order to ensure an orderly sale process and to maximise competition between the consortia.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, has the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals been consulted about this matter?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we indeed consulted the CVCP prior to the sale, following the amendment to the British Technology Group Act passed in this House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, do I understand from the noble Lord's second reply to me that it is the Government who are prepared to give up the confidentiality of research projects submitted to the British Technology Group? Is it the Government's intention during the flotation to compel BTG to surrender the confidentiality of the research with which it has been provided?
Lord Reay: My Lords, as I said, we believe that it is in the best interests of a competitive sale to conduct the negotiating process in confidence. However, we have not sought to prevent bidders from revealing the identity of their own consortium, nor from giving information about the structure of the consortium, nor factual information about the members of their consortium.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that there was a great deal of secrecy about the sale of Rover to British Aerospace? Does he also recall that as a result of that secrecy a huge scandal blew up? Are we likely to have a similar kind of scandal over this matter?
Lord Reay: No, my Lords.

The Battle of Alamein: 50th Anniversary
3.14 p.m.
Lord Westbury Lord Westbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider holding a service to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Alamein.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, the Battle of El Alamein is commemorated in Egypt each year at a Commonwealth ceremony and an international ceremony held jointly with the Germans and Italians. We recognise the importance of the 50th anniversary and are considering how best to make this year's commemoration special. I shall advise my noble friend of our conclusions as soon as possible.
Lord Westbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Does he realise that the three turning points of World War II were the Battle of Britain, Alamein and Stalingrad?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we indeed realise that the Battle of Alamein was the decisive battle in the North African campaign. As Churchill himself was later to write:
"Up to Alamein, we survived; after Alamein, we conquered".
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, are the Government saying that they have no intention of commemorating the 50th anniversary of Alamein in this country?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this point will most certainly be considered, although I am sure your Lordships will agree that the thrust of our commemoration must take place at El Alamein.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we warmly support the request of the noble Lord in view of the historic significance of this great battle and in memory of the brave men who fought and died there? Is he further aware that there is no argument against holding a service in this country?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I repeat what I said initially; everything will be taken into consideration. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is quite right about the courage, bravery and endurance of the allies. During the 12 days of the campaign some 13,500 either fell or were taken prisoner.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in addition to the three turning points mentioned by my noble friend Lord Westbury, the Battle of the Atlantic, as Mr. Churchill himself said, was an important, if not the most important, turning point?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that other commemorative events in which the services are likely to participate apart from El Alamein include the Battle of the Atlantic and the Normandy landings.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that it is by no means self-evident that the thrust of the celebration should be in Egypt rather than in this country? While it may be that from a world strategic point of view the Stalingrad battle, with its mixed consequences over the following 40 years, was of more importance, El Alamein was a turning point for British arms. After the victory the church bells were rung in this country for the first time for three years and I believe that it would be appropriate that a further ringing of church bells in celebration should take place on the 50th anniversary.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the strength of your Lordships' feelings. I shall pass on the strength of those feelings to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a major service in this country, either at the

721
Abbey or at St. Paul's, would not be inconsistent with the usual one in Egypt and would give an opportunity for tribute to be paid by large numbers of people in this country who realise how decisive this victory was?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying but I do not think that I can add anything further to what I have already said.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Earl be gracious enough to convey to his right honourable friend the fact that the Royal British Legion, of which I am proud to be a president, which represents ex-servicemen, many of whom were at El Alamein, will support those noble Lords who have said that there should be a proper recognition of the gallantry of those who fought and of those who gave their lives? That is the desire of our Royal British Legion. I am sorry that some noble Lords opposite cannot support that.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Royal British Legion plays a prominent part in such activities and I am perfectly certain that it will continue to do so.

Livestock Count: EC Proposal
3.18 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultation they have had with the European Commission concerning the proposal that every cow in the EC should have a special identification tag, and every field a specific number, and what is their policy on these proposals.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the proposal to which the noble Lord refers is known as the integrated administration and control regime. It has not yet been discussed in Brussels but has been referred to a Council working group for detailed consideration. The Government are in favour of measures to fight fraud but have reservations about the cost-effectiveness and practicality of this proposal.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she communicate with her honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in order to see to it that some personal examination takes place of the preliminary draft budget of the Commission for 1993 in view of the fact that expenditure of the magnitude that is required is likely to be spread over a number of titles? It is one way the Commission has of being able to obtain approval, largely unobserved, of the expenditure that it wants to undertake. Will she cause the Commission to be informed that the United Kingdom already has a comprehensive land registry, which is available to everyone including the Commission, and that we are quite capable of counting livestock, even on the move.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall be glad to pass on the noble Lord's message to my right honourable friend. I am aware that we have an
722
ordnance map that covers fields. However, I am not sure whether our European partners have the same. Frankly, apart from the fraud aspect, I should have thought that the information about cows would only be interesting to a bull.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as a former member of the NFU, I should like to ask my noble friend what are the advantages which are supposed to arise from such proposals which many may think slightly ridiculous?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Commission's proposals for reforming the CAP would replace existing support arrangements by a system of compensatory aid linked directly or indirectly to the cultivated area or the number of animals kept by each farmer. It is because of that new approach and the associated risk of fraud that the Commission has come forward with its proposal for an integrated administration and control system. If my noble friend understands that, he is a better man than I, Gunga Din.
Lord Ross of Newport: My Lords, I have actually looked in the ears of many cows and bulls in my time. Is it not a fact that most of our cattle are already tagged, or have their numbers written on them, so that it would not be quite so difficult to identify them?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I submit that it is a bit more complicated with goats and sheep.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our Ordnance Survey, for reasons of economy, is threatening to withdraw or discontinue the system of OS numbers which effectively numbers fields and outlying acreages? In view of this incomprehensible proposal from Brussels, does my noble friend agree that it is an unfortunate moment to do so? Therefore, will she use all her influence to stop such action because not only might it conform quite simply to the directive which may come from Brussels, but also it is of tremendous use to people in this country, especially surveyors?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Commission has not yet produced any details. Therefore we must wait for them to emerge when the proposal is discussed in Brussels. With regard to the Ordnance Survey part of my noble friend's question, I can tell him that I shall certainly look into the matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Baroness not agree that the proposal will make the crazy common agricultural policy even crazier? Further, is it not such nonsense which enables M. Jacques Delors to propose that the British net contribution over the next year or two should double from £2,500 million to £5 billion? Would it not be far better and far cheaper if agricultural policy was repatriated to the individual member states?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest that we keep to the Question on the Order Paper. The Government will continue to make the point in

723
Brussels that it would be far better to have simpler, fraud-proof support systems in the first place than this convoluted sort of scheme.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that about one thousand years ago William the Conqueror assembled the Domesday Book cataloguing all the land and animals in this country—or rather, in England, I should say? Is it not a fact that we in agriculture in this country, whatever the faults of the CAP, suffer from a lack of system, as do those in several other countries, and that it is just possible that a simplified register may help this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said before, we have no details of the proposal. Therefore, we do not know whether or not it is simple.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, in the agricultural negotiations with her European colleagues, will my noble friend encourage the reporting to the police and veterinary surgeons of the death of cattle as is practised in this country?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that that suggestion is something that we can bear in mind.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the noble Baroness said quite correctly that the proposal—whether serious or comical, depending on one's point of view—stems directly from the proposals which Commissioner MacSharry has in hand for the restructuring of the CAP. Does she agree that Commissioner MacSharry is approaching the matter as though the GATT negotiations did not exist? Will Her Majesty's Government impress upon the Commission in general, and on Commissioner MacSharry in particular, that when we know the shape of the GATT settlement we shall then be in a better position to restructure the CAP?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Baroness has not been able to express the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to the whole nature of these proposals, will she ask her right honourable friends to bear in mind the fact that, in its report of about a year ago on the prevention of fraud, the Commission acknowledged that the cost of operations such as aerial photography, and all the associated measures, was not entirely financially satisfactory?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the content of the last report covered work carried out and progress achieved in 1990 in the fight against fraud. A summary of the report is contained in Explanatory Memorandum 5677/91 submitted by HM Treasury on 30th April 1991. The noble Lord may be interested to know that it is expected that the next progress report will be available by Easter.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a word about the two debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy. As the mover is allowed 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate, in the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, this means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of five minutes and in that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, six minutes. If any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, he would be doing so at the expense of subsequent speakers in that debate. It is probably worth reminding ourselves that when the Clock indicates, for example, five minutes, then we are about to commence the sixth minute and not the fifth.

Business of the House
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
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 Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill through all its stages tomorrow.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before we proceed any further, I should like to point out that we on this side of the House have noted with dismay that the Government now propose to take the Second Reading of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill on 13th February; that is, tomorrow. Noble Lords will be aware that the original arrangement was that the debate would take place on Friday, 21st February. It has been brought forward by eight days.
That proposal is not acceptable to noble Lords on this side of the House. I must register the strongest protest against it. There are three very good reasons for that protest. First, as the House knows, the Bill is an important and complex one. It is necessary for noble Lords to have adequate time to study it in detail. A First Reading on Monday and a Second Reading on Thursday does not provide adequate time.
Secondly, the new arrangement departs from our procedure; namely, that two weekends should be the minimal time between the introduction of a Bill or the date when a Bill is brought from the House of Commons, and the debate on Second Reading. That rule is to be found at page 91 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. Thirdly, there has not been adequate consultation or any agreement upon the proposal. The House can only carry out its primary work, which is the revision of legislation, if there is consultation and agreement between the Government and the Opposition. That applies not only to the Official

725
Opposition, but also to all parties in the House, including Cross-Benchers, right reverend Prelates and government supporters. That is absolutely essential.
If we depart from that principle of agreement, the House will be in deep trouble, and the Government will have to take responsibility for that. If this party were to form a government, I wish to give a clear undertaking that our intention would be to observe the conventions and the rules and to seek the agreement to which I have already referred. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would be good enough to explain why this departure from convention is taking place. Is it, for example, related to the date of the general election? I must also ask him to return to the original arrangement and to have the Second Reading on Friday 21st February.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept that this is no isolated protest by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn? My noble friends and I feel equally strongly about the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made several powerful points, the most important of which was that the House operates, sometimes arcanely, but on the whole successfully, upon the basis of agreement. Agreement on this issue has not been secured. The noble Lord the Leader of the House would be unwise to proceed on that basis. He can do so if he wishes, but the resentment which will be built up will be out of all proportion to any procedural advantage he may gain.
As we approach a general election, when a great deal of business will have to be tidied up at the last moment, it would be a heavy burden for the Government to take upon their shoulders.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, having heard the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, I am bound to say that I am grateful for today's psalm:
"God is our hope and strength, a very present help in trouble".
I realise that I owe the House an apology for the shortness of the notice that has been given for the Second Reading of the Bill and the change in the business. I realise full well that I owe the House an explanation. I believe that it is a good one.
Yesterday afternoon there were no amendments tabled for the Committee stage of the Coal Industry Bill, although that was tomorrow's business and it had been estimated that it would last between three and four hours. There seemed a real likelihood that with a great deal of business for the House to do, we should have been rising tomorrow afternoon at 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock. I am bound to say to noble Lords, with respect, that that would have looked very odd indeed. I am not sure how we could have explained it. It has little to do with the general election. Whenever the general election comes, this is a short Session. All noble Lords are well aware that there is a great deal of business to transact.
At the same time, I knew that noble Lords from Scotland have always taken the view that it is not desirable to take important Scottish business on Fridays. I also knew that many noble Lords from
726
Scotland would have considered it helpful, rather than the reverse, to have the change of business. It is not right to give the impression that our decision was one wholly adverse to the interests of noble Lords. Indeed, there were many noble Lords who had represented to us that it was undesirable to take the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill on a Friday, and had made it known to us that it would be very much better to take the Bill on a Thursday—and on this Thursday —so that it could be dealt with when all noble Lords interested in the measure would be able to be here.
I hope that, on reflection, your Lordships will not think that tomorrow is too soon to take the Bill. Under the minimal intervals rules, which of course are only advisory, the Bill would, in any event, be right for Second Reading next Monday. There was no other Bill right for inclusion in tomorrow's business.
On the issue of adequate time to study the Bill, the Bill was of course published some considerable time ago and has been available to your Lordships for some time, because we are not the first House to consider the Bill. Furthermore, I believe that all your Lordships would agree that many of the issues dealt with in the Bill have already been canvassed during the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill for England and Wales which has only recently gone through the House.
It is in those circumstances that I hope that your Lordships will feel that we have not been altogether unreasonable. We tried in fact to fill up the time available to take legislation in this place in a reasonable way. We have tried to avoid the absurdity of finishing up tomorrow with no business, or no business which would occupy the whole of our time, and then require a number of noble Lords who find business on a Friday inconvenient to come down for that business a week on Friday.
I owed your Lordships an explanation. I know that this is an unusual course to take. I should not think of doing anything like this as a matter of course, but we were confronted with an unusual situation early yesterday afternoon. It was in the light of the information received, not any preconceived plan, that we decided to find some business to fill up tomorrow so that we would have adequate work to do.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is it in order for me to ask a question?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was one of those who took a strong line against the only Scottish Bill going through the House in this Session being sidelined onto a Friday. Does my noble friend agree that I made strong representations, believing that Scottish Peers on the other side of the House would be grateful to me? I am surprised that the Opposition are taking such exception to the change, because the issues are well known, and have been well known for some time. I accept that the change does not give us much time to write our speeches. I hope that my noble friend will accept that at least some of us felt that this proposition was a much better idea.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend asked me a question. The facts she gave are correct.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us on this side of the House are puzzled by his explanation, although of course we are grateful for it? He appears to be saying that if business suddenly becomes light on a particular day, and the House is likely to go up early, he has to find some business to put in its place so that we can have a full day.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is what the noble Lord the Leader of the House appears to be saying. I must point out to him that during the eight or nine years that I have been here we have often finished at 6 p.m. or 6.30 p.m. or perhaps even 5 o'clock. It has not apparently been necessary to push forward some business to fill up the number of hours left in that day.
As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, Standing Orders have not been complied with to enable us to have the new Scottish business tomorrow. Many of us are very worried that in the future, if this were to be taken as a precedent, we should find the same kind of thing happening with other Bills if we had two or three hours left between 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock which had not previously been foreseen. That is a serious issue. It is something we cannot allow. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will be able to retract his proposition, because it has serious implications.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I believe that he has missed the point. It was not just that there would be insufficient business for tomorrow, it was the fact that while there was insufficient business tomorrow, there was a demand to take business from a week on Friday and to put it on tomorrow for the convenience of some Scottish Members.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, that is not strictly accurate. There was a demand to move the Scottish business from Friday which one well understands. When that business was put down for a Friday, I made a complaint about it as part of the usual channels. The complaint is not that the business has been moved from Friday but that it was brought forward eight days to a day when the party Whips indicated that no such debate would take place.
The noble Lord must understand that there may well be people in Scotland whose first indication that the matter would be debated tomorrow was when they received the Minutes of Proceedings today, if they received them today; they may not receive them till tomorrow. It is grossly unfair to Members of your Lordships' House who come from Scotland and who may wish to be present for the debate to have only 24 or 30 hours' notice, or even less. That is the complaint that the Opposition Whips, the usual channels and others make.
728
We were told about this yesterday afternoon and we immediately objected. As my noble friend said, unless we can run the House through consent and through the usual channels we are on a slippery slope.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I try to be as helpful as possible to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. When it was announced that the debate would be on 21st February I was reluctant but accepted it, knowing that an election was coming and that the Bill would be rushed through. With respect to the noble Lord, it was not correct to say that the Bill was published a week or so ago and that we knew all about it. A number of amendments were made to the English Bill in your Lordships' House which had a strong effect on the Scottish Bill.
When I discovered last night that there had been discussions through the usual channels over moving the debate forward to Thursday, again in order to accommodate the House I reluctantly shrugged my shoulders. But I then discovered that I had a great deal of rushing around to do in order to obtain information about the effects of the English Bill on the Scottish Bill. I had to go back to source, to the vice-chancellors and principals in Scotland.
I did not like the idea of staying here on a Friday but I had adjusted to it. Now as well as having to adjust to having a Scottish debate today, I shall have to put another towel around my head tonight to prepare for a second Bill tomorrow. Helpful though I wish to be, I believe that that is not treating the House as well as it should be treated.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, all a CrossBencher can do in these circumstances is to enter a plea for a little tolerance and express the hope that in arranging the business of the House the usual channels will remember an old nursery rhyme:
"Monday's child is fair of face,
Tuesday's child is full of grace,
Wednesday's child"—
That is the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, today—
"is full of woe,
Thursday's child has far to go"—
all the way from Scotland—
"Friday's child is loving and giving".
I hope that we shall never have sittings on Saturday or Sunday. If Friday's children who favour that day could be loving, giving and understanding, it would improve the atmosphere in which we exchange our views.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that, although it is no doubt true that early yesterday afternoon no amendments had been tabled to the Coal Industry Bill, since then I believe that eight or 10 amendments have been tabled? I learned that from the Printed Paper Office this morning.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House know at what time he expects the start of discussion on the Bill tomorrow? I gather that

729
only the Government Whips know at this point how many people have put their names down to speak. Does he know?
I ask because I agree that few Scots in the House would welcome discussion of major Scottish business on a Friday. However, in getting away from the Friday the noble Lord may have moved from one difficulty to another. The Scots in this House are not enthusiastic about discussions taking place on a Thursday, which means that they cannot catch the last plane back to Scotland.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the Leader of the House replies, perhaps I may remind him that what he indicated to the House about the absence of amendments to the Coal Industry Bill was absolutely correct at 12 noon. However, as soon as I was advised that amendments would be put down, I immediately informed his private secretary and subsequently confirmed shortly afterwards that amendments were being put down. I did so knowing that the situation that brought about the possibility of the change had itself altered during the course of the day.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I rise to answer the points which have been made, the importance of which I do not underestimate. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. He expressed the view that it was undesirable to have Scottish business on a Friday and he was not entirely happy therefore about the business set down for next Friday. However, if one is not happy about such business being set down for next Friday, one must consider what alternatives are open to us. The noble Lord will freely admit that we have heavy business planned. I am sure that it would not have been possible to reach agreement on a change in the business next week to accommodate the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill earlier in the week.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that there were difficulties over people preparing adequately if the Bill is taken tomorrow. However, I emphasise that to the best of my knowledge this Bill, which started in the other place, has not been significantly amended. Therefore the text has been available for a considerable time.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I cannot ask people to be loving but I hope they will be understanding in the circumstances. I must tell the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Graham, that although amendments were put down later in the day, there are still only four. It is inconceivable—bearing those amendments in mind and the indication which had been given to us earlier by the Opposition—that that would have filled our work tomorrow. I am sorry if I am wrong, but I understand that there are only four amendments down.
I was grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who reinforced my case by saying that few Scottish Peers welcome Scottish business on a Friday. I appreciate that neither do they welcome
730
our sitting late on a Thursday. But my understanding is that there is no fear of our having to face that situation tomorrow.
I am told that there are now nine amendments to the Coal Industry Bill, the earlier business. However, so far as I can see, that would nothing like fill up our time tomorrow afternoon.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before we finish the discussion, is the noble Lord aware that he is avoiding the central issue—namely, the failure to seek agreement on the way in which a Bill is to be conducted in the House? As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said, if we proceed along these lines we are in danger of running into serious trouble.
If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, it is no lack of tolerance on my part. I hope that I am a reasonably tolerant man, but this is not a matter for nursery rhymes. I am not full of woe. I am concerned about the future of the House and the conduct of business in it.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Leader of the House a question. Not having known anything about all this, I have listened and I fully understand all the arguments. However, I feel deeply, as I know he does, and so does the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about the need for consultation over business in the House. Without such consultation I do not believe that the House can survive in its present state. I have a deep regard for the survival of the House in its present state. I wonder whether it would be possible for the discussion to be conducted privately through the usual channels rather than continuing on the Floor of the House. I believe that it would be possible to do that and it seems to be the best way of proceeding; otherwise it does not seem that we shall reach a reasonable solution.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I could not possibly ignore such a suggestion from my noble friend. I have listened to all that has been said by noble Lords this afternoon. Obviously I shall ensure that the matter is discussed through the usual channels. That must be done at once because time is pressing on us. If we were to go into reverse, we would be in a bigger muddle than ever. I shall certainly ensure that such discussions are initiated forthwith.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Sit down!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is no good noble Lords shouting at me to sit down because I shall not do so. I may well wish to divide the House on this matter. I have a question that needs to be answered before I make a decision on that matter. I am perfectly entitled to divide the House if I wish to without consulting my noble friends on the Front Bench.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has said he will initiate discussions after we have concluded our discussion in the House today. However, any discussions he may have can only go one way because if we agree to his Motion there is no going back. Will

731
he advise me whether he would be prepared to withdraw the Motion at this point so that realistic consultations can take place?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I must point out to the noble Lord that when I moved the Business Motion the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, quite rightly used that as a vehicle for discussion on an entirely separate matter. The Business Motion which is before the House has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill should be taken tomorrow or Friday. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was mistaken on a point of form, he was in a way right on a point of substance. To conclude this matter satisfactorily the noble Lord the Leader of the House should assure us that, following the powerful intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, he will approach these immediate discussions through the usual channels with an open mind rather than with a view to forcing upon the House the decision he has already arrived at.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Finance Bill
3.53 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 19

Clauses 70 to 83,

Clause 97,

Schedules 1 to 6,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 20 to 69,

Clauses 84 to 96,

Clauses 98 to 102,

Schedule 7,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 103 to 118,

Schedules 10 to 14.—(Earl Howe.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Weapons of Mass Destruction
3.54 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont rose to call attention to the potential dangers to the security and stability of the world posed by the spread of weapons and technologies of mass destruction; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for returning to this matter so soon after it has recently been discussed. It was discussed most recently when an Unstarred Question was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. However, I believe this to be a matter of great importance which has not yet been sufficiently discussed in your Lordships' House. Therefore I hope noble Lords will not feel I am imposing too much of a burden upon your Lordships.
Before I begin my speech I must say how much I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. The noble Lord brings to your Lordships' House a wealth of military wisdom and experience which I am sure will be enjoyed and appreciated. I must ask for the indulgence of the House in proposing this Motion as I shall have to speak fast to cover the topics I want to cover in the 15 minutes at my disposal.
First, I wish to review the threat that is posed to the stability of the world and to our security by nuclear proliferation, by the spread of chemical and biological weapons and, perhaps most importantly, by the spread around the world of ballistic missiles. I shall then consider how we might combat those threats. I wish to ask the Government whether they are thinking in terms of the non-proliferation treaty with its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as being an adequate safeguard. Would the Government contemplate military intervention in certain circumstances to back up UN sanctions? Have the Government thought of engaging in some form of ballistic missile defence preparations? How do the Government think this affects the status of our own nuclear deterrent?
I shall briefly discuss nuclear weapons. Originally five countries were regarded as nuclear weapons powers; that is, the five permanent members of the United Nations. It is worth noting here that one of those, the Soviet Union, is now being replaced by a number of countries, each of which is, in its own right, a nuclear weapons power. Instead of having five nuclear weapons powers we now have perhaps seven, eight or nine.
India and Pakistan have already declared that they have, or are about to acquire, a nuclear weapons capability. I believe most of us would estimate that South Africa already has a nuclear weapons capability. Israel, too, probably has such a capability. Then there are the near nuclear powers. There are many countries which will soon have the ability to acquire or make nuclear weapons. I need only mention Iraq. As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, we can never really be sure that that country is not pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. We know that Iran has a neutron source reactor and electromagnetic isotope separators from China. I cannot believe that they are entirely required by the Iranians for peaceful purposes.
Syria is in negotiations with China for the purchase of a reactor. Algeria has a reactor acquired from China. North Korea has a complete and independent technical infrastructure plus two reactors. Despite the agreement between North and South Korea that has recently been announced, I believe the proliferation

733
situation there is an extremely disturbing one. We can add to that the dangers of proliferation from the Commonwealth of Independent States, (the former Soviet Union) and the existing proliferation from China which is exporting nuclear technology and other missile technology in large quantities. There are also dangers inherent in the behaviour of certain Western commercial companies which, despite the dangers involved, are already exporting nuclear weapons and missile technology. One might reasonably conclude from that that by the early part of the next century, which is only a few years away, there may well be 20 countries which are either nuclear powers or near nuclear powers, or have a nuclear capability of some kind.
If we compare the instability that that position poses with what we were faced with in the days of the cold war, it almost makes one yearn for the cosy stability of the East-West confrontation. That is disturbing enough, but we have to add to it the possible spread of chemical and biological weapons. For obvious reasons I shall not go into too much detail on that subject but we know, for example, that before the break-up of the Soviet Union and before the events of the past two years had occurred, the Soviet Union had the most advanced military chemical capability in the world. There are something like 75,000 tonnes of chemical stockpiles now in existence. The Soviet Union claims it has 50,000 tonnes, but Western intelligence considers the figure is more like 75,000 tonnes.
We know that material was deployed to forward units of the Soviet mechanised infantry in the days before the break-up of the union. All over the Commonwealth of Independent States there is chemical material which is dangerous in its present form. It is also difficult to destroy and, by most expert judgment, will take at least 10 years and several billions of dollars to remove. At the moment it poses an actual threat.
There are 15 to 20 third world countries which in many cases have used chemical weapons either in war or in the process of internal security. There are many others which have developed biological agents. We know, for example, that Iraq acquired microtoxins in 1989. Those form the raw material of biological warfare. Iran also attempted to purchase one of the ingredients of microtoxin technology in 1989. We also know of the Libyan facility at Rabta and that it is dangerous.
At the beginning of the next century there will be 15 to 20 third world countries with a nuclear capability, a chemical capability or a biological or germ warfare capability, and in some cases all three. Some of those countries are erratic and unpredictable and under fanatical and dangerous leadership. The question is: if they have that material, how do they put it to military use? We should not need to be too disturbed if all they had lying around were agents of mass destruction but no means of delivery. That is no longer so. That is the development which is beginning to worry most of us who are involved in the problem.
Proliferation of ballistic missiles is the one aspect which brings the threat from the back of our minds to the front. Here a similar pattern emerges. There are 15 third world countries which now have ballistic missiles in their possession; 15 countries which will quite soon own their own ballistic missile production facilities. They will be able not only to construct ballistic missiles but also, if they wish, to export them. Most intelligence assessments suggest that by the end of this century there will be 24 countries, many of them third world countries, which will have the capacity to make, acquire or use ballistic missiles.
That is the picture which emerges. There is no need to labour the point. There is a growing number of countries, among them Middle Eastern and third world countries, many with unpredictable and fanatical leaders, which possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the means of delivery by ballistic missile. I have no desire to make the flesh creep, but Western Europe and the United Kingdom are within the radius of action and range of some of those ballistic missiles.
What is the strategy of the West, and in particular the strategy of this country, to deal with what I regard as the most important single danger facing the world in the period following the collapse of the communist empire? At the moment the strategy is unclear. I hope that when he replies the noble Earl will be able to give some guidance. For example, have the Government accepted that the non-proliferation strategy based on the 1967 treaty has failed? A number of important countries have not signed or ratified the treaty 25 years after it came into force in London. Proliferation has taken place. What steps are the international community and Her Majesty's Government taking to contain it?
Are we taking steps to strengthen the powers of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna? Are we prepared, as I suggested in a recent debate in your Lordships' House, to supply the agency with our own national intelligence, in a suitably sanitised form, which often indicates to us the truth of matters which may not be entirely clear to those in Vienna? Are we prepared to contemplate the use of force, perhaps under the aegis of the United Nations, as the ultimate sanction in bringing about a halt to the spread of weapons of mass destruction? Would we use force in certain circumstances even to destroy the facilities of those making and stockpiling those weapons if no other means of doing so existed? Are we taking steps to prohibit commercial concerns from exporting sensitive material, as we did in the days of what used to be called the COCOM agreement? There may be a case for having a global COCOM agreement to prevent the export to countries of the kind of materials which are specifically connected with the acquiring of the technology to make and use weapons of mass destruction.
I recognise that efforts are being made. There is the missile control technology regime and there is the Australia group, which has been formed to combat the spread of chemical and biological weapons. I recognise also that Her Majesty's Government are playing a leading role in many of those negotiations

735
and are responsible for a good deal of the intellectual content of the proposals which have been put forward. It seems to me that we cannot rely entirely on arms control to ensure our national security in this very dangerous environment.
What should we be doing, then, in the context of national defence? There is one matter which I should like to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House. It is a concept which is known by one of those terrible acronyms so favoured in the world of strategic analysis—GPALS (global protection against limited strikes). That is a concept which derives from the Reagan idea of the strategic defence initiative. It is designed to protect the countries not only of the West but also of the former Soviet Union against limited strikes by maverick leaders who might acquire nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and use them either to threaten or destroy our countries. It is a US concept, accepted by both sides of the political spectrum there, and a great deal of money has been voted by Congress in pursuing it. When President Yeltsin went to Camp David he agreed with President Bush that the two should get together to see whether they could collaborate on the project. A book by Dr. Keith Payne, the president of the US National Institute for Public Policy, has been published this very day. It sets out the case for that new concept. Therefore I shall not go into the matter further now.
However, I should like to ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government are in consultation with the United States on GPALS—I am sorry about that acronym but there is no quicker way to say it—and what is their attitude towards it. It would be very foolish if we allowed ourselves to deploy against GPALS the same arguments which were deployed against the strategic defence initiative. It is a new concept in a new strategic environment.
In the last minute at my disposal I should like to refer to our own nuclear deterrent. It seems to me that in this context the maintenance of a fully effective nuclear deterrent in this country is of the utmost importance. The Government have decided to base our deterrent on a submarine-launched strike force. As I always do on these occasions, I declare my interest as the chairman of VSEL. I make the point strongly nonetheless that in my view we can use the Trident force when an arms control environment is right in this country, in other words when the United States and the former Soviet Union have so reduced their capability that it begins to affect our own. We can do that without arguing about the number of submarines at sea. However, I shall not embark on that argument at any length.
Finally, I should like to seek the reassurance of Her Majesty's Government that our protection against this appalling new threat will not rely entirely on international agreements, which are not universally adhered to and which have been broken before and will be broken again and which can in any case, under their own terms, be repudiated at a few months' notice. I beg to move for Papers.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am more than grateful and suitably humbled to have been given this opportunity to make my maiden speech in a debate which draws attention to probably the greatest threat to the security and stability of the world, that of the spread of weapons and technologies of mass destruction. However, before I associate myself with the debate I should like to pay a tribute to my father, who was a regular attender in your Lordships' House from the time he took his seat in 1966 to his final few years when ill health intervened. He held the traditions and customs of the House in the highest possible esteem, as he did your Lordships, the door attendants and the staff that he knew so well.
In this debate I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the dangers from proliferation and some of the ways of preventing the spread of these weapons and technologies of mass destruction. Information has been published that in 10 years' time an additional number of countries will have a nuclear offensive capability. It has been reported that the former Soviet Union possesses some 30,000 nuclear warheads with about 1,376 strategic missiles. It may take well up to 10 years to dismantle those weapons, which would allow the former Soviet Union to retain its vast superiority in these weapons during the next decade.
I turn now to some of the dangers that arise from proliferation. First, the Moscow Institute of Geography has estimated a possibility of up to 76 border disputes within the former Soviet Union and serious trouble may break out between Ukraine and Russia. If those border disputes start, it is highly unlikely that the republics will hand over their nuclear weapons to Russia. It is more likely that they will retain them and build up strong forces to protect themselves and their ill defined borders.
A further danger will arise if third world countries develop or acquire their own nuclear offensive capability. The southern Moslem bloc of 90 million people, linked together by a common religion, in possession of weapons of mass destruction will cause serious concern to the West. There is also a danger that smaller weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organisations such as Abu Nidhal or the IRA.
If we are unable to stop proliferation, what are the steps that we can take to minimise its effects? First, we should ensure that the former Soviet Union's nuclear scientists and the rumoured sales of nuclear weapons are not exaggerated stories as part of a policy to ensure that the West is panicked into hasty actions and one sided treaties. That would allow the former Soviet Union to achieve in months what it was unable to achieve in 40 years of perpetrating the cold war. Secondly, it is vital that we increase our intelligence gathering systems and organisations to provide more accurate and timely information about countries that already possess or are about to possess nuclear weapons. Thirdly, the requirement exists to strengthen and ensure sufficient inspection and verification teams from the International Atomic Energy Agency and authorise them to carry out unannounced rapid spot

737
checks on those countries. Fourthly, the existing regulation prohibiting suppliers from providing likely components to such countries should be urgently and carefully reviewed and where necessary amended to avoid making further mistakes.
We must press the former Soviet Union to accept our proposal to send it nuclear weapon disposal teams who would verify stocks and report progress on the dismantling of weapons and the destruction of launchers with their associated command and control systems. This is a matter of some urgency. Unlike wine, which should improve in the barrel, Russian-made nuclear weapons deteriorate in their canisters and enough seepage could occur to cause many Chernobyls.
In conclusion, I feel that the West is reacting too quickly. We should take a more measured view and carefully examine the existing evidence emanating from the former Soviet Union. We have heard that there are serious doubts about control of the weapons. It may be true to say that they are under the control of the military. But who controls the Red Army and the other servicemen today? There is much confusion over that question and the answers are not at all clear.
In addition, there have been disputes between Yeltsin and Kravchuk over the control of the Black Sea fleet. There has been fighting in Georgia, bloodshed between Azerbaijanis and Armenians and a likelihood of more serious fighting to come over border disputes. The economy is in shreds. Starvation is likely to happen in about two weeks when food stocks run out. The Red Army is very bitter, seething with discontent and suffering from poor discipline and low morale. Yeltsin's fall from power cannot be ruled out. Add to that gloomy picture the spread of nuclear weapons and the defection of scientists and skilled nuclear technicians and the situation becomes of even greater concern.
Now is not the time to lower our guard, nor to proceed with our proposed defence cuts. It is not the time to question our minimum nuclear deterrent, which is the keystone of our defence policy. With all the instability and uncertainty in the world and with the continued spread of nuclear weapons, now is the time for the United Kingdom to be increasingly vigilant, to maintain our present force levels until the situation becomes clearer and to remain as robust as ever. I am grateful for your Lordships' attention and I thank noble Lords for their courtesy in listening to my maiden speech.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, first I should like on behalf of the whole House to offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on his maiden speech. We are fortunate to have among us this noble Lord who has so much practical experience and has commanded in the trouble spots of the Mediterranean. I hope that we shall hear often from him.
We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for alerting us to the potential danger to the security and stability of the world. There has never been more opportunity to create a new, peaceful world
738
order and we have never been in danger more mortal if anything goes wrong. The responsibility of us all, but particularly of our leaders and statesmen, is awesome. One false step and the history of our planet will have been written.
We are in the middle of a global revolution. We are threatened not only by the proliferation of weapons but by a population explosion, mass migration and unprecedented economic aspirations raised without real foundations, particularly in eastern Europe. We have witnessed national disintegration. We face scarcity of resources and are watching relentless environmental decay. All that has surfaced and climaxed with the fall of the Soviet Union.
As the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, pointed out, the situation is very serious. How bad it is can be judged by the words of Mr. Yeltsin, who when he was in Paris said:
"Dictatorship will return if the reforms fail".
Simultaneously, the chairman of the Russian state bank said that the economic measures have led to anarchy and chaos. Georgi Matjuchin, a leading economist in Mr. Yeltsin's government, is on record as having said that the reforms are doomed. His Deputy Prime Minister has again questioned all those measures. If a playwright had tried to create a tragic scenario he could not have improved on what is happening there.
In 1945, after the Second World War, there was also a situation of anxiety, opportunity and chaos. At that time it was suggested that perhaps the United Nations should be enabled to maintain a standing international military force, subject to the command of a man appointed by the United Nations, which could step in and intervene if trouble started somewhere. Alas, it was not possible to do that because the stalemate between the United States and the Soviet Union and their ritual position toward each other prevented it. But now it could happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Cheshire, to whose speech I am very much looking forward, has suggested in this House that an international military police force should be set up which owes allegiance only to its commander. Because of the few minutes left to me, I shall rush through this: I think we have one in the Gurkhas. The Gurkhas have a tradition of loyalty and obedience to their superiors and, provided they are backed logistically and as regards infrastructure by the United Nations and provided the United Nations is empowered to intervene if a conflagration threatens, it could be a first step. I am afraid I do not want to be reprimanded again and so I will stop.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow, although a little way behind, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who made his maiden speech. It is particularly appropriate since his regiment was one which had the particular task of leading the way in the Gulf campaign.
I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Chalfont about the potential proliferation of nuclear, chemical and possibly bacteriological weapons. They are weapons that, by all the laws and usages of war,

739
should not be used. They breach both the principle that the degree of force to be used should be proportional to the issue for which the war is fought and that, so far as possible, non-combatants should be protected from the fighting.
There is no doubt that many parts of the world today face actual and potential dangers to stability and to the preservation of the security of the existing political structure, but I think we need to remind ourselves that that does not come primarily from the proliferation of these sorts of weapons. It comes more from proliferation in the numbers of independent states and from proliferation in the conventional arms which have been supported so irresponsibly by the international arms trade.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, came to certain conclusions. First, he came to a conclusion with which I totally agree: that the most energetic possible action needs to be taken to be able to inspect and control the proliferation of these weapons. I do not think I am too keen on GPALS because most of these weapons are designed to fire at people's neighbours, and I am not sure GPALS would help a great deal in that connection. However, I am not an expert on that.
In the short time available to me I should like to concentrate on my disagreement with the noble Lord's last point regarding the maintenance of what is called our own minimum deterrent. He and the noble Lord believe that the danger of proliferation reinforces the need for us to have what is called a minimum deterrent which involves having ready to fire 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (366 this year), a weapon system capable of penetrating an anti-ballistic missile system more sophisticated than the only one in existence today; that is, the one defending Moscow. It is apparently thought necessary in case any of the existing or potential nuclear powers should suddenly decide to fire a nuclear weapon at this country. That has always seemed to me a very unrealistic scenario—it is more unrealistic now than it used to be—and providing against it is a gross form of over-insurance. If we have to have such a minimum deterrent, why does not every other nation need one? It encourages others to think that they should have one and it is therefore useless —indeed worse than useless—as a deterrent against the danger to which the noble Lord's Motion draws attention.
A much better form of deterrent would be the strongest possible effort through the United Nations Security Council to develop an effective method of inspection and control of these weapons, which must somehow be linked to some form of control of the international arms trade in other weapons. The Government pay lip service to that but undermine it by blithely proceeding with a significant increase (although they refuse to say by how much) in the number of warheads for the Royal Navy's strategic strike force, and with the development or purchase of a new nuclear weapons system for the RAF. If the Government are serious in their support of international action against the proliferation of these weapons, which everybody seems to agree is a great danger—indeed, the Prime Minister himself said so on 29th January—they should at least defer the order for
740
the fourth Trident submarine and the plan to order a new warhead for a tactical air-to-surface missile for the RAF.
Three things should be done. First, we should give every support to the United States in its negotiations with the former republics of the Soviet Union in reducing their nuclear arsenals and establishing a secure regime to control them. When those negotiations have produced a reduction to a level at which the British and French arsenals become significant, they also should be involved, but meanwhile they should not be increased. Secondly, we should put all our weight behind developing an effective United Nations inspection and control mechanism to cover as wide a field of armaments as possible, a satisfactory outcome of the Iraqi situation being a vital test of progress in that direction. Thirdly, we should not consider becoming engaged in hostilities against a nuclear power without the support of the United States. I do not believe that that last item would be very difficult. We have been prepared to accept it in Europe for some 45 years, and I cannot see why it should not apply elsewhere.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, it is ironic that after all the rejoicings and the talk of "peace dividend" when the Soviet Union collapsed two years ago it is now realised that the situation is rather more dangerous than it was when NATO and the Warsaw Pact were in balanced opposition. If I may, I should like very quickly, and with the very greatest respect, to differ from the noble and gallant Lord who has just spoken about our major reaction to this situation. I think it would be a fatal mistake to drop Trident and the British nuclear deterrent.
The noble and gallant Lord asks: why should we have it and not other people? The answer is that we in this country have very great responsibilities throughout the world, and we have accepted those responsibilities. We were in fact the only people to fight all through the last war with success, and indeed it was our resistance to German aggression which enabled the allies ultimately to win. We have a very special responsibility, and to give up the four Tridents would be a most damaging mistake. I am only sorry that so distinguished a figure as the noble and gallant Lord should be advocating this. I do not believe that other people accept it.
However, in the very brief time I have, I want to ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. First, can he tell your Lordships what is the position in respect of the nuclear and other arms which I believe are being prepared by Iraq? There is a perfectly clear United Nations Security Council resolution demanding the clearing up of this investigation and the cancellation of these various apparatuses. But what is happening? There seems every reason to believe that Saddam Hussein is continuing with the research and development of nuclear weapons and probably also of chemical weapons. I should like my noble friend to say whether Her Majesty's Government are going to move the United Nations Security Council to secure the implementation of their decision. Simply to wait and

741
hope would be an extraordinarily dangerous thing, because the possibility of someone of Saddam Hussein's already proved tendency to aggression being equipped with weapons of this sort is an extremely dangerous one, and it should be gripped at once.
The only other point I wish to have a little advice upon concerns the standing down of the enormous number of weapons which the Soviet Union has, particularly of a nuclear kind. What is it proposed should be done? As I understand it, you cannot just take nuclear weapons and dump them on a rubbish heap. To demobilise them and take away their destructive power is a long, difficult and technical job. Are we assisting Russia to do that?
Also, are we dealing with the other problem, that the Soviet Union has a number of highly expert scientists and research workers who understand nuclear weapons, how they are made and how they should be handled? What will happen to them when the Soviet Union reduces, as we hope it will, its nuclear capacity? Will they be employed in countries such as Libya, Iraq or half a dozen other countries which are seeking to develop those weapons? Will the Russians take steps to secure that their scientists and technicians are not used in that way, but are given decent and responsible employment at home? That will prevent them being seduced away by high salaries for that purpose. I should be grateful if the Minster will answer those questions when he replies to the debate.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, faced with a new danger, those of us who regularly concern ourselves with the safety of our people and of the world are showing signs of coming together. Although we use a different language the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and I are unusually at one in our anxiety about the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction. My support of his Motion is wholehearted.
That is not to say that I agree with every word that he said, but in general I share his anxiety although we may have slightly different attitudes to the conclusion which we finally reach. Perhaps I may say in brackets that there is no time to pay an adequate tribute to the maiden speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. Perhaps he will have time to express himself at greater length in the future and we shall be able to congratulate him properly then.
Although, as I say, we use a different language, we reach the same conclusion, that the situation is extremely dangerous. The defence analyst Frank Barnaby gave authority to the obvious when he observed recently that the nuclear disarmament on which the great superpower, the United States, and the successors to the Soviet Union are currently engaged does not of itself make the world a safer place. That is the problem.
I shall be able to keep my speech within the five minutes because the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made one or two of the points which I should have made and
742
he made them much better than I could have done. However, we must ask ourselves what action we can take to improve rather than worsen the situation. It seems to me there is coming about a general view that in our determination to increase the number of nuclear weapons, at a time at which everybody else is trying to decrease them, we are in danger of making the situation worse rather than better. That is now becoming the consensus of opinion on this matter.
The situation is not helped if nuclear reduction by the United States and Russia is accompanied by horizontal proliferation to other countries and by vertical proliferation by Britain. The reason given by our Defence Secretary for the enormous leap upwards in mass destructive power from Polaris to Trident is that we need it to maintain a minimal deterrent. Is it possible for him to believe that a megatonnage of 3,000 or 4,000 Hiroshima bombs is minimal in the face of a collapsed, dispersed and almost disappeared enemy? Seldom in the field of human communication has so lame an excuse been given for such indefensible action. Wittgenstein should be alive to excoriate that. However, even if he were, he could not do much in five minutes.
A number of people from opposite sides of the same problem, equally concerned about it, are coming together and are beginning to move towards a common ground. I found myself in complete agreement with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, on several points and I hope I shall not embarrass him by saying that. I am fairly sure that I shall not.
Another point about the concentration on Trident is that it destroys the credibility of our Government's adherence to the non-proliferation treaty. In the eyes of non-nuclear nations Prime Minister Major is merely absurd when he ignores Article 6 of the treaty which obliges nuclear nations to reduce and eventually disarm nuclearly. In effect, the Prime Minister says, "Do not do as I do, do as I say".
There is still more that I should like to say but perhaps we shall be able to discuss this subject at greater length on another occasion. I hope that we shall because I can think of no subject which is more important.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Zuckerman: My Lords, if this debate does no more than underline the facts which are common knowledge—namely, that the dangers of proliferation are greater than they have ever been—we shall have achieved very little this afternoon.
It seems to me that the basic problem is to restore to the United Nations the authority which was taken away from it in 1946 when the USSR rejected the Baruch proposal, prepared by Dean Acheson, who was then Deputy Under-Secretary of State, and David Lilienthal. That proposal gave the United Nations the authority to control the development and use of nuclear power for any purpose.
Once the USSR recognised that that would leave the United States with a monopoly of nuclear power it rejected the plan. Once rejected, proliferation began. One of the first proliferators was the United Kingdom

743
and the next proliferator was France. The story about the reasons why we decided to become an independent nuclear power is, I assure your Lordships, extremely interesting.
The effects of the USSR's rejection was, first, the arms race as we know it, and, secondly, the race between the build-up of nuclear weapons and the attempt by technological means to achieve a defence against nuclear attack. The failure to achieve a CTB at the end of the 1950s and early 1960s was due to the fact that the American people had not heeded General Eisenhower's warnings about the increasing strength of the military industrial complex. That prevented President Kennedy from giving the support which he should have given to Mr. Harold Macmillan, then Prime Minister, who was passionately concerned that there should be a successful outcome to the CTB negotiations.
The partial test ban treaty which was achieved in 1963 did little to prevent the build-up of nuclear armaments. Testing increased at a rate which no one had previously expected was possible.
Simultaneously and paradoxically, we worked our way through a non-proliferation treaty to an anti-ballistic missile treaty, to the SALT treaties and, unfortunately, on the other side of the coin, to MIRVs—ballistic missiles which carried up to 15 independently targeted missiles.
The attempt to achieve a technological defence was a romantic myth from the start. SDI achieved nothing but a waste of money. All that has come out of the presumed defensive work that has been done since the 1950s are the Patriots of the Gulf War, whose effectiveness against the enemy Scuds is now a matter of debate. Any argument is now used—a matter on which my noble friend Lord Chalfont and I differ —to keep the SDI going in another form. It is a will-o'-the-wisp. The latest reason put forward by proponents of defence is that a proper SDI system could protect our globe from meteorites.
The offers made to President Yeltsin, who probably knows almost nothing about any of these things, are appalling. Offers that he should join the US in keeping the armaments industry alive are made in the pursuit of an unachievable defence. It is easier to build nuclear weapons—to devise new ones—than to achieve any kind of defence.
Unless authority is restored to the UN, proliferation is bound to occur. Measures must be found to prevent that. We must strengthen, as several speakers have already said, the IAEA. It cannot be strengthened unless new powers are agreed for the UN of which it is the instrument. We should throw open all our nuclear installations rather than a few. With the Russians and the Americans now sharing their secrets, what do we have to lose? It would help to give some moral authority to the IAEA.
The other matter for which the Government should press, as Sir Anthony Parsons said in a recent newspaper article, is a comprehensive test ban treaty. The problem is not to continue with vague concepts of mutual deterrence, but to make as a primary goal the deterrence of proliferation.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall confine myself to the threats posed by the former Soviet Union. They are both strategic and tactical. The strategic threat is that we shall eventually be confronted by a modern streamlined military force designed to carry out the Soviet policy of "defence sufficiency", especially if the CIS presidents accept the armed forces package of proposals on 14th February. That is not purely defensive. It will be served by a defence industrial complex which remains part of the command economy and represents 50 per cent. of the whole industrial capacity of the former Soviet Union, and probably a larger proportion of Russian industry. It produced up to capacity in 1991, including a new aircraft carrier and, according to the chairman of the State Committee for Conversion, will determine the level of defence sufficiency before conversion. He said,
"The policy is to attract foreign partners".
Both Bazhanov, the chairman, and the deputy director of the Kurchatov Institute evidently want to solve the problem of the possible brain drain of nuclear and other scientists by setting up joint projects with the US and Russia. That is an excellent way of securing access to Western technology. There are contradictory statements made about the brain drain. Sometimes we are told that nuclear scientists will be driven to accept work elsewhere unless we share our secrets; sometimes we are assured that they will not be allowed to leave for at least 10 years.
On the question of Libya the Kurchatov Institute director made the interesting statement that the Russians set up a nuclear centre in Libya at Tajurah for strictly peaceful purposes some time ago. There were some Russians there; there had been up to 100. The head of the USSR's nuclear programme, Professor Mikhaylov, denied any brain drain. He gave a figure of over 100,000 working in nuclear arms development,
"of whom 10,000 to 15,000 possess real secret information".
The main object seems to be to give the West good reasons to share technology and set up joint projects. The third strand of Soviet strategy is to disarm NATO as far as possible politically as well as militarily while themselves destroying their obsolete weapons to create a modern high tech army. Verification is rapidly being forgotten, but we must surely take note that contradictions between what Boris Yeltsin says and the facts are frequent. As recently as 8th February the Belarus Defence Ministry, quoting statements made both by Yeltsin and Kravchenko that the withdrawal of all tactical nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan and Belarus to Russia was completed on 1st February, said that that,
"did not accord with the real situation".
That is one example.
Equally, despite the fact that the defence/industrial complex continues under state control, military helicopters are being sold to China, and Ldmurtia—a major centre of the military and industrial complex —after a visit from the conversion committee was authorised to produce not consumer goods but arms for sale abroad.

745
Russian strategy is clearly to end up with a lean, mean army; a defence industrial complex drawing in Western technology and maintaining its nuclear capacity and a climate calculated to disperse NATO's defence capacity. The tactical threats to stability are internal and largely unpredictable. If the armed forces obtain the right answers from the CIS presidents on 14th February, a strong central strategic force and delegated conventional forces, and the necessary budget, one threat will be averted—not the threat of a coup but of uncontrolled and spontaneous demonstrations by the troops. Those are only too probable if they see no prospect of housing, good pay, career prospects and good resettlement terms upon being demobilised.
The disorder would be turned to good account by the right wing opposition to Yeltsin led by Rutskoy, a war hero and vice-president and representing powerful elements of Russian chauvinism. That group would appeal to both injured Russian pride and to fears of Islamic fundamentalism. Rutskoy spoke recently of around 376,000 officers without a flag and deplored the dreadful conditions and the poor pay of the armed forces.
The other most serious tactical threat is the unstable and potentially dangerous condition of many tactical nuclear weapons, even if they have been moved back to Russia. They are badly stored and not yet dismantled. There is an equally dangerous threat to safety posed by obsolete nuclear power stations which have never met Western safety standards. According to a Finnish statement Sweden has been pressing for the closure of several such stations. But the Finns felt that the Russians were unlikely to agree as they needed the cheap energy.
There are all too many examples of high radiation levels about which nothing is done. I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Vivian—whose maiden speech I heard with great admiration—that it is vital for us to make no serious and irrevocable changes in our defence until the situation in the former Soviet Union is stabilised and we can identify the threat more accurately. And we must retain our deterrent. We are not dealing with ordinary Soviet people but a sophisticated and determined establishment. The KGB in particular is alive and well.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, Presidents Bush and Yeltsin are right to come to grips with far-reaching disarmament and arms control measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, suggested, the concept of an effective global collective defence system based on the strategic defence initiative and built jointly by Russia and the United States at least deserves constructive analysis. It will not be possible to lose the ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction even when we eliminate existing stocks, as should be our firm resolve. There is evidence that a bright undergraduate with access to all existing publicly available information could, within months, design some sort of nuclear device.
746
Collective security with an enhanced role for the United Nations, the Secretary General, the Security Council and its own forces, can no longer be regarded as an idealist pipedream. It must become the absolute priority goal in any realistic foreign policy. Trident may be needed to replace the ageing Polaris—but surely it must be Trident pro tern as part of the context for building collective security and moving to collective disarmament, not as a substitute. But why more warheads than Polaris when Bush and Yeltsin are moving in the opposite direction? Is it still to be 300 additional warheads? If not, how many more? Why any more? If Polaris can cope with the updated ABM system round Moscow, what is the new factor to justify more warheads on Trident?
Furthermore, why, in the new political situation, do we continue to target Moscow at all? Without Moscow and its ABMs as a target we could do with fewer and not more warheads than on Polaris. It would always be possible to increase the number if, sadly, any adverse developments necessitated that.
I believe that we can make a powerful contribution to strengthening the cause of non-proliferation if we come out firmly for a strengthened non-proliferation treaty with a more intrusive verification process, backed by tough UN sanctions, against those in breach. But we must understand that our credibility in arguing for that will be related to our own self-restraint on Trident.
We live in an age of cold-blooded, sophisticated terrorism. The crude nuclear bomb, assembled in an urban area from parts brought together in packages, is not an impossibility; nor is the bomb in a container or in a container ship in port; nor even is some device on a civil airliner flying a regular route. Our traditional strategic analysis must not be at the expense of facing the grim but unorthodox as well. We need to consider radical means of controlling all fissile material and its movement around the world.
But, more importantly, we have to recognise that the new hellish dangers that we have been debating this afternoon underline the policy imperative of striving for a fair and just world in which there will be little climate of sympathy for the terrorist. That means the highest priority for draconian control of the arms trade; fair terms of trade in general; space for economic development; debt alleviation; effective and generous aid policies; sane management of the environment; the protection of human rights and, perhaps above all, the promotion of good governance. It is by these positive social and economic policies in the age in which we live that the surest way of building peace and stability for humanity can be secured.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Cheshire: My Lords, the point that I wish to make comes from the very depth of my heart. I was not expecting that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would make my central point. I thank him. I was not expecting the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, to say that he was looking forward to my speech. I fear I shall let him down. In my mind I go back to that day 47 years ago when I was sent as an official observer to watch

747
the dropping of the atomic bomb that ended World War Two. I had to report back on the implications for the future of air warfare as I saw it.
There was one central point in my mind: that the key to the future lay in the delivery system. It seemed obvious to others and to me that the day would come when any nation with the political will and the money would acquire a nuclear device or something equally bad. Who knows what is coming? What would really count would be the delivery system. Then I saw that coming through space. When I reported back, that opinion was not very well received. People's minds were on peace-time and not on that kind of thing.
The world has now changed with the East-West confrontation gone and with it the military world has changed. But that central point of the delivery system still holds good. While I applaud practically everything that has been said today, and support it, there is one factor that worries me. We have been looking in one direction only; namely, the military means of delivery. That is likely to be a thing of the past. If there were a nation, perhaps a fundamentalist regime, that had a real reason for wanting to hurt us, it possesses the delivery system. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, indicated, we have civil airlines coming over our airspace every day. One can deliver bacteria in a container and put it in the drinking supply. There are all kinds of undercover ways in which lethal weapons, not just nuclear weapons, can be delivered.
It seems to me that there is only one basic answer. That was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, in his excellent speech, which I much enjoyed. I refer to enhanced intelligence gathering. I know that in this House the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was asked what precautions he had taken to prevent a disabled Soviet spacecraft falling out of space and landing on the Palace of Westminster. His reply was on the lines of, "The same as I am taking against a number 73 bus crashing into Nelson's Column".
We were warned of that possibility, but we are not being warned of the other possibility of a deliberately lethal cargo being brought here under cover. It follows from that that, if we need global, enhanced intelligence gathering—I say humbly—our intelligence services need bettering. Not only that, but the people who listen to what the intelligence is bringing in need to have open minds. Plenty of intelligence came in in 1938 and 1939, but it was not listened to because people did not believe that that kind of thing could happen. All I am asking is that, whatever our party, whether we believe in abolishing all nuclear weapons or whatever is our position, we should stand together and think in radically new ways about the danger of undercover delivery of a lethal cargo.
It is a privilege for me to take part in this debate, which I believe touches fundamentally the future of the children whom we leave behind us in the new world to come. I end by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right that we must build a better society. However, we must also have enhanced global intelligence gathering.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the prospect for nuclear non-proliferation is not everywhere so dark as it was three months ago. In the two Koreas the US "sunshine" policy has secured the aim of the whole civilised world. US nuclear weapons were withdrawn and both Koreas are now on their way into the IAEA regime and nuclear-free status. I use the word "sunshine" in the Aesopian sense; the sunshine will get the overcoat off your adversary quicker than a strong, cold wind. Yet, oddly enough, President Bush continues to abuse North Korea as if he had not noticed his own success as a sunshine merchant.
The situation as regards India and Pakistan is bad, but not that bad. Pakistan says that it will give up its nuclear weapons—it is only a screwdriver away—if India, which tested a bomb in 1974, does the same. But India will not do so without China, and so forth, as Mr. Hurd found out. In the Middle East itself, Dr. Blix of the IAEA has just been in Syria which has agreed to accept full IAEA safeguards. He and the Syrian Government have espoused the idea of a Middle East nuclear-free zone. Iran has had a visit from Dr. Blix's number two. He has commended its choice of nuclear power for electricity. Iraq is being expensively forced to submit to proper inspection. Here we must note that some of the inspectors have been discovered exaggerating their findings. They are US national inspectors, not IAEA ones.
So where is the real seat of trouble in the Middle East'? Over the years our Government here have denied all knowledge of Israeli nuclear capability. Now they know a great deal. Seymour Hersh's book The Samson Option has now told them, and all of us. It is a remarkable book and is accepted by the knowledgeable, despite one passage added to the British edition, which was wrong, and caused a minor fuss. In previously denying knowledge, Her Majesty's Government were merely doing a good turn towards previous US administrations, going along with their 35 years of silent acceptance of Israel's nuclear capability, which was completely incompatible with their public anti-proliferation policies. US administrations had steered themselves into a cleft stick. They could neither approve in public nor, for several reasons—both honourable and dishonourable—disapprove. So they kept quiet while American millionaires privately paid for Israel's now massive nuclear capability and individuals passed secret information, and perhaps material, and what they did not, Israeli intelligence took, sometimes with strange ease.
The US taxpayer funded the nuclear delivery systems and the US Government provided targeting data so secret that neither NATO nor even this country was allowed them—data which were used by Israel to destroy the Iraqi reactor in 1981. The US taxpayer is now funding an anti-ballistic missile system, or perhaps two, from behind which Israel can only present a yet more alarming aspect to all her neighbours. The possibility of Mr. Sharon succeeding Mr. Shamir will make blood run cold in many neighbouring places.

749
It is this independent nuclear capability of Israel that stands in the way of a livable Middle East and a livable 21st century. Israel, backed by the United States, remains totally defiant of world law, defying the Geneva Conventions, defying countless Security Council resolutions, standing in military occupation of the territory of its neighbours which it has invaded, and in some cases annexed, and adamant in continuing just like that.
The other Israel must be found. An Israel that can re-enter international legality by returning territory, accepting the resolutions, joining the toughened IAEA which we must now build up in destroying its nuclear warheads, and all the rest. But it will not be found as long as the United States continues to arm it to the teeth, conventionally as well as nuclearly. Meanwhile, successive British governments have trotted obediently behind the regime of connivance in Washington.
However, we have only to say things like that in this House, and ostrich heads opposite go down and from under the sand come mumblings about America-bashing.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, with pleasure and appreciation as always. However, I felt that we were beginning to live in a rather surreal world if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, of all people said that he was almost beginning to yearn for the cosy stability of the cold war. A number of other noble Lords have expressed the same thought. I should not be here making a contribution to this debate if I did not appreciate that we live in a dangerous world. But surely we cannot be living in a world as dangerous as that in which we lived between 1948–49 and 1988, when the two most powerful nations that the world has ever seen had pointed at each other 20,000 nuclear warheads, and, with their allies, were living on a knife edge. The dangers of that are bound to seem overwhelming and extraordinary to future generations.
I return to the present difficulties. I hope I may be forgiven if I devote my speech to a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, when he recalled the efforts made immediately after the war under the name of the Baruch plan to secure international control of nuclear energy. I do this without apology. I mentioned the subject in a defence debate in this House two or three years ago. I would not dream of mentioning it again had it not been for the fact that at a recent discussion on defence in Munich no fewer than three speakers suggested that we should turn our attention back to the idea and the spirit of the Baruch plan. One of those speakers in Munich was Dr. Teller, the father of the H-bomb, the other two were on the one hand a French Gaullist, the other a German Christian Democrat.
The concept Baruch plan is perhaps a misnomer —the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, mentioned that. Baruch was the United States financier who President Truman rather unwisely asked to be the chairman of
750
the United States delegation to the first meetings of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission. The plan was devised in a committee chaired by Dr. David Lilienthal. The core of the scheme introduced was devised by that brilliant and misunderstood scientist Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. It is worthwhile reflecting that, had it not been for the cold war, the disappearance of which we are all aware, we should have lived in a world in which the Baruch plan, the Oppenheimer plan, the Lilienthal plan —whatever you may call it—would have applied to us.
What was the core of the plan? It was that all nuclear development and exploitation should be internationally controlled and that there should be a monopoly of nuclear development. The brilliant element of the scheme was that there would have to be inspectors who, like the International Atomic Energy Agency, would be concerned to detect illegal activity. But also they would be involved in the production and development of the nuclear industry throughout the world so that—and Dr. Oppenheimer made this point extremely strongly—we would have had people conducting the inspection who were as intelligent as those who might be thinking of carrying out a breach of the arrangements.
I believe that in the present circumstances we should go back to look at those schemes of 1945–46 in the new climate and wonder whether we could not see, with the changes in the United Nations, whether they might not again be effectively applied.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for introducing this debate. It was certainly a chilling prospect of proliferation which he presented. I was particularly struck by the statistic of 15 third world countries possessing ballistic missiles. The whole question of proliferation was excellently portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, in his maiden speech which gave such enjoyment to us all.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and particularly his comment regarding British nuclear weapons that people will say, "If us, why not others?" I must tell the House that in the 1950s I was a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It seemed to me at that time that a perfectly good intellectual case could be made that while Russia and the United States had nuclear weapons they could be trusted not to use them indiscriminately or to have serious accidents. The great problem was to stop the spread. Therefore, Britain, being the only other nuclear power, was in a unique position to take a lead in the matter.
In fact, I am able to tell your Lordships that I left the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as a positive measure. My membership did not lapse. My decision to leave the movement was triggered off by the behaviour of some of the supporters of CND at a meeting which Hugh Gaitskell addressed in Gloucester. I was one of the minor acolytes on the platform. Their behaviour towards Hugh Gaitskell so disgusted me that I decided to leave the movement. I now believe that we should retain our deterrent.

751
I echo the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He pointed out that, had it not been for the stand made by this country against Hitler in 1940 before others rallied to our cause, the whole map and ethos of the world today would be extremely different. I was surprised that he had to try to generate a little interest today on the part of the Government in celebrating the 50th anniversary of El Alamein in this country as opposed to the country in which the battle took place.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He said that he would be accused of US bashing, an accusation made in a previous debate. I do not think that he was US bashing. I think that he was Israel bashing. However, we are improving matters in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was the eleventh speaker, and for Israel not to get a caning before the eleventh speaker in a debate of this nature is progress. What he omitted to mention to your Lordships when discussing the possible existence of an Israeli nuclear weapon was the minuscule size of the country and its population in a large hostile area and also the series of attacks which have been launched over the years against the state of Israel.
I conclude by joining the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Cheshire, in speaking about the need for extreme and heightened vigilance against terrorism. I refer not simply to the indiscriminate—or possibly not indiscriminate—and comparatively small incidents but to the possible major intrusions of hidden nuclear weapons into countries by means which noble Lords have already described. We need to upgrade our attitude towards terrorism: it sometimes seems to be lukewarm. If hostages are released after several years of completely unjustified imprisonment, we find people falling over themselves to thank those who deprived them of their liberty for all that time. If the IRA declares that it will have an amnesty on Christmas Day or during the festive season we are supposed to be thankful; in fact, some people do express thanks. The whole thing is abhorrent, and we should upgrade our response to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, encapsulated the situation that we are in. We have, he said, the best chance of constructing a new world order to deal with these problems but at the same time, and hand in hand with this, we are probably facing one of the worst periods of mortal danger that the world has ever known.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this debate, which comes at a most timely moment, and for giving us such a comprehensive review. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Vivian on his most excellent maiden speech.
The break up of the Soviet empire and the change from one large clear nuclear threat to 100 separate sites in 13 different republics is very reminiscent of Hans Andersen's fairy story, The Snow Queen, whose icy mirror splintered into thousands of little pieces which flew about the world doing far more damage than the single mirror.
752
The heads of Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan agreed last December to act unilaterally with the Russian president as regards their nuclear weapons, and last month Belarus sent off its first assignment of nuclear weapons to be decontaminated in Russia. The United States of America has already offered 230 million dollars to help to disable weapons and we have offered technical advice. There is much to be done. It is possible that some nuclear devices may be capable of conversion for domestic electricity. All that is good, because it is the enormous quantity of the Russian nuclear weapons—27,000 of them—which is so frightening. Once in the wrong hands, there might be no world left for anyone to debate about.
The current suggestion from President Yeltsin is that President Bush should in some way pay and employ the Russian nuclear technicians—at least 100,000 of them, according to Professor Valeri Mikhail, director of Russia's nuclear programme— and so possibly prevent their services being offered to countries such as Iraq. However, many of the Russian installations are less well insulated and maintained than Western ones and, with lack of finance, could deteriorate. Weapons can seep and become environmental hazards. There is much cause for concern here.
Perhaps the most worrying factor is the severe food shortage in Russia and the growing discontent of the people—and perhaps disenchantment with democracy as they find it. It is a country where prices have shot up, but wages have not. When I was in St. Petersburg last year people were queuing everywhere. "What are they queuing for?", I asked my guide. "In case there is something they can buy", she told me. And when we left, the waiter in the hotel said, "It is sad you are going now. There has been a delivery. Tomorrow you could have had a piece of fresh cucumber."
The situation with the army is worse. Its soldiers are still in East Germany and the Baltic countries in great numbers, because there is nowhere for them to go. There are not enough barracks, not enough houses, not enough jobs; and there is not enough food. It is a situation in which anything might happen; and a very dangerous one.
All we in Britain can do is continue with our Trident system, which will update the current Polaris and give us a very real nuclear deterrent of our own, and at the same time give all the help we can to the Russians to decrease their 27,000 nuclear weapons and help to make their country into a prosperous and peaceful democracy.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not in my place earlier. I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on a very constructive, courageous and well delivered speech. We hope to hear from him on many occasions in the future.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the reasons why, in contrast to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, I believe that we should keep and update our nuclear deterrent. The noble and gallant Lord has not changed his view and is always consistent. The first reason is the dangers of a disintegrating Russian

753
empire and the growing capability of third world countries. Every speaker has underlined the dangers, not least the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who introduced the debate. He was marvellously constructive in putting forward his views. Gorbachev has gone and Yeltsin has told us that he has his own problems. Meanwhile there are 27,000 nuclear weapons—roughly half of which are ICBMs and the rest IRBMs —to be dismantled. That in itself is a terrific problem. There are 3 million Russian troops to be sent home and found jobs and houses. By Russian estimates that will take 10 years. Why then is it suggested that we should not retain our deterrent?
When I was a civil Lord of the Admiralty 30 years ago we were launching the Polaris programme. It was one of the few estimates that I have ever made that has continued to be correct. I said then that it would cost 2.5 per cent. of our defence budget. That is true today. It is 2.5 per cent. so it is not keeping out of the budget other items which would be more useful at the present moment. We are saying that we should have one nuclear submarine at sea at any time which would carry 125 nuclear warheads. The French have five nuclear submarines, not four which is the number that we are planning to have. They deploy over 500 nuclear warheads in them. People forget that fact.
I should also like to suggest that there is one other weapon which can be used against proliferation: we must build up and spend money on the most sophisticated intelligence that we can provide. It was the disintegration under the Freedom of Information Act in America which cost the lives of hundreds of American agents, after many of them had been tortured for information. That had a spin-off for us here at Langley. I believe that we have still not built up Langley to what it was before that time.
I was sorry to see—and I believe that I am right in saying this—that the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party have a freedom of information Act in their manifestos, or at least an intention to introduce one. I ask them to consider most carefully the repercussions that could arise among the 20 or so third world countries which are developing these sophisticated weapons of mass destruction. I personally think that it is unwise to have a freedom of information Act, but there is a huge media boost attached to it. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, wishes to intervene. I gladly give way; but I thought that that proposal was in the Labour Party manifesto.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is all subject to security aspects.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, the Labour Party should come out firmly and take it out. The world would be a better place. We must build up our information services, not do away with them.
In reply to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, who is a very old friend of mine from cricketing days, I must say that I am sorry to see that the Leader of the Labour Party has still not pulled out of CND. I understand that he is to let his membership lapse. There are between 100 and 130 existing Labour
754
MPs who are still members of CND. That does not apply to this House. They have a very strong Left Wing and potentially sympathetic crowd down the Corridor. Resignation from the CND would not do any harm.
I return to my original message. I plead with the Government to build up the intricacies, the professionalism and the research in intelligence so that we may know what countries are involved. Perhaps we could have stopped Iraq from doing what it did if our intelligence services had been better and had not been destroyed by the Freedom of Information Act.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I imagine we would all agree that the major reason why a country declines to renounce weapons of mass destruction is the possession of such weapons by another country. North Korea agreed to renounce nuclear weapons only when it had been assured that the United States was withdrawing its nuclear weapons. Pakistan has hesitated to renounce them because India has them. Iran and the Arab world would certainly be ready to consider renouncing such weapons but for Israel's nuclear monopoly. Thus the cause of nonproliferation lays responsibilities on the "have" as well as the "have-not" nations; indeed, perhaps more on the "have" nations because they have set the pace. If proliferation is a sin, they are the primary sinners.
During the previous debate on this subject I spoke of the need to strengthen IAEA, the need for better intelligence, and so on. I have just enough time to follow the lead of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and other speakers in referring to Britain's record on non-proliferation. We were undoubtedly right after the war to decide to produce our own nuclear weapons. But that was an act of proliferation —indeed, of horizontal proliferation. When the Government now increase the firepower of our deterrent and acquire a new and more powerful sub-strategic nuclear missile system, that again will be an act of proliferation—of vertical proliferation. It may not seem so to us because we do not threaten anyone. But what is meant as a deterrent by one country is habitually misinterpreted as a threat by others.
We could perhaps construct a table of honour measuring a country's commitment to nonproliferation. There would be three stars for countries with no nuclear weapons which have pledged themselves not to have them; there would be two stars for countries which have no nuclear weapons but have not yet taken the pledge; there would be one star for nuclear countries which are disarming; and, finally, no stars at all for nuclear countries which are increasing their nuclear weapons. According to such a table of honour, this country would be in the bottom group, along with, probably, China, Israel and France.
Let us take another test of a country's commitment to non-proliferation. It is generally agreed that a classic advance towards a non-proliferation regime could be achieved with signature of a comprehensive test ban treaty. But which countries are obstructing that aim? It is not Israel, France or China; the two

755
countries concerned are the United States, which is disarming, and Britain. To a detached observer, Britain's record on non-proliferation is deplorable.
In his very informative speech the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, set out the case for discouraging the spread of nuclear weapons in every country except Britain. He defended the full nuclear programme of the United Kingdom. That is a strange position. Once again, and quite rightly, the noble Lord declared his interest, which we all understand, as chairman of VSEL. I believe that that enables me to say without the slightest ill will that, if the proposal in his speech was carried out, increases in nuclear weapons would be discouraged in every place in the world except Barrow. I believe that that is correct.
Lord Chalfont: No, my Lords; that is not correct. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord the reason. The missiles and the warheads on Trident submarines have nothing to do with Barrow. We make the submarines.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am talking about the increase in nuclear weaponry, in which I include submarines.
Finally, when the Minister replies, perhaps he will be able to tell us about the dangers of proliferation and about the Government's determination to end it. I hope that he will also say that as a first step the Government propose to put their own house in order and that they have decided not to escalate the firepower of our deterrent and not to continue to obstruct negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it would be difficult for me, as I am sure your Lordships will understand, to make a comprehensive wind-up speech from the Opposition Front Bench in five minutes, especially on a debate as important as the one introduced today by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. However, I have noted one or two points that I should like to put to your Lordships.
First, in his introduction the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spent a certain amount of time talking about chemical and bacteriological weapons. To my knowledge, no speaker has actually concentrated upon that point. I hope the noble Earl will be able to address it in his reply. I say that because in many ways those weapons are just as important and destructive as the nuclear weapons upon which most speakers have concentrated. The problem of nuclear proliferation arises—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, recognised, although perhaps in passing—not because we wish to go back to the old regime but because under that regime there was at least a clear identifiable control of these major nuclear arsenals. We may not have liked the form of control, but at least we did not have the chaos that reigns in the former Soviet Union at present.
I turn now to my second question for the noble Earl. I hope that he will be able to tell us what will happen to the tactical nuclears which were in the former Soviet Union. I believe that we are aware of what will happen to the intercontinental ballistic
756
missiles, but it seems to me that the tactical nuclears are spread all over the place. We do not know the Government's view on that aspect of the matter.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney reminded us, we must look very closely at Article 6 of the nuclear proliferation treaty. It enjoins us to act "in good faith" and pursue negotiations,
"on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date".
That is a treaty to which we are signatories. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew: it is very difficult for our Government to go to any other government in the world, be it India, Pakistan, China or any other country, and say, "You have got to accept that you are a non-nuclear country and do not have a deterrent, but we are going to increase our deterrent while we are persuading you to abandon yours".
The things that we have to do: we have to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty. We have, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, to support a comprehensive test ban treaty. That will give us some leeway. We must—here I refer to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cheshire—try to guard against what I called the other week the nuclear mercenary with the briefcase—the man who just happens to walk across a frontier and into Whitehall and deposits a briefcase with a nuclear device inside. That will happen unless we can guard against it. How we do it, I know not. I hope that the Minister will be able to help us on that point.
If we are to make progress—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman—we must be prepared to accept intrusive verification by the United Nations or the IAEA, whichever body is appropriate.
I agree too with my noble friend Lord Kagan: there are opportunities, but we face enormous dangers. I believe that the Minister is, by now, aware of my party's position on Trident, and so I shall not repeat it. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was slightly misrepresented, if I may say so, by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Orr-Ewing. I do not believe that he was saying that we should immediately give up the deterrent. He was merely saying that perhaps we should look again at the fourth boat. That is what we wish to do.
This has been a quick, sharp, machine-gun type debate. Many important points have been made. It is now for the Minister to sum up where the Government stand. We hope that when he has done that we shall be much clearer as to how we can get out of the appalling situation in which we are at the moment.
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House this afternoon. It is a subject to which much attention has been paid lately in the media, in the House and in another place. It is understandable that my noble friend Lord Vivian should choose this subject for his maiden speech. I believe that your Lordships will agree that his knowledge and interest in the subject will serve us well in the future.

757
As the terms of the Motion for debate themselves make clear, weapons of mass destruction represent some of the most serious threats to world peace and security. It is therefore not only right and proper that we should devote as much attention as we can to such issues, it is indeed imperative that we do so. The Government are doing so and will continue to do so.
Our resolve can be seen in the outcome of the recent high-level meeting of the UN Security Council, convened and chaired by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. British efforts ensured that a substantial part of the statement issued at the meeting concerned issues of arms control and weapons of mass destruction. The statement records the council's view that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a threat to international peace and security. The members of the Security Council committed themselves to working to prevent the spread of technology related to research or the production of weapons of mass destruction. We believe that the Security Council is uniquely placed to help prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a permanent member of the council, we have a special responsibility to see that it is successful.
Of all the weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons are the most chilling, given their almost infinitely vast destructive potential. In recognition of that, efforts to restrict their proliferation have been under way almost since they were invented. The treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is the most visible of those efforts and is the cornerstone of present efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was concerned that the treaty had failed. With nearly 150 states parties, the treaty remains the most successful arms control treaty in existence. It is the only global instrument through which states can make a formal commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, and it represents the international political consensus against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is, furthermore, the political vehicle which legitimises action against those, such as Iraq, who seek to break that consensus. The statement issued by the UN Security Council on 31st January recognised its importance and welcomed the recent decision by many countries to accede. The United Kingdom, as a depository for the NPT, has a special responsibility for it and has long championed its cause.
The UK is seeking to combat nuclear proliferation in various ways. The first and most "traditional" way is by seeking to persuade non-states parties to the NPT to accede to the treaty. We have worked hard at that task. The spate of accessions to the treaty since the Gulf War is welcome reassurance that for its part the international community continues to place faith in the treaty. The accession of South Africa and the decisions to accede of France and China are particularly welcome. The United Kingdom will continue to do what it can to persuade other non-states parties to follow suit. We still believe that the best way to achieve a universal nuclear non-proliferation regime would be for all states to accede to the treaty.
758
Nonetheless, it would be foolish to deny that the experience with Iraq has highlighted certain shortcomings in the workings of the non-proliferation regime which have to be examined urgently if the NPT is to continue to maintain international credibility. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that the United Kingdom, together with other like-minded states, is addressing those shortcomings. Together with our EC partners, we have made a series of proposals to the IAEA for a strengthening of its safeguards regime. We have supported, in particular, greater use of special inspections which would allow suspect but undeclared sites to be visited. We have, by the way, been advocating the use of such inspections since before the Gulf War. We hope that in that way we can prevent other states party to the NPT from emulating Iraq. We stand ready to do everything we can to make such a system work. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton for the remarks he made.
I can also assure the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Zuckerman, that the NPT is not without teeth. It requires all parties to implement the safeguards agreement with the IAEA. If safeguards are violated, the IAEA statute requires the violator to be reported to the Security Council and the General Assembly. It is then up to the Security Council to take appropriate action.
The disintegration of the former Soviet Union has created new challenges for the non-proliferation regime which require new thinking. The Soviet Union had, after all, the largest nuclear arsenal of them all. There is a clear danger that some of the huge reservoir of now redundant nuclear materials, technology and scientists it has bequeathed may find their way into the wrong hands. My noble friend Lord Vivian emphasised that point.
Clearly, the responsibility for combating the risk of proliferation caused by that situation lies first and foremost with the states of the former Soviet Union themselves. We have encouraged them in that task and have made clear to them consistently the significance we attach to their commitment to non-proliferation in developing bilateral relations with them. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary underlined that concern personally last month on his visit to Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. But, clearly, we must also do more than just urge good behaviour from the sidelines. And we are doing more than that, in close consultation with our allies.
When President Yeltsin called on the Prime Minister on 30th January, they discussed those ideas. They agreed the offer which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had made to Marshall Shaposhnikov at their earlier meeting, that the United Kingdom should send a team of experts to Russia to identify where the West might be able to assist in the process of eliminating surplus nuclear weapons, of interest to my noble friend Lady Park. That team led by the Ministry of Defence's principal technical adviser on nuclear matters has been in Moscow this week. The team also included experts in the storage and handling of nuclear warheads and materials, and in nuclear fuel technology. Their task was essentially

759
fact finding: to establish Russian requirements at first hand. I understand that the discussions have been constructive. We shall be considering what assistance we may be able to offer in the light of their report, and consultations with allies. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to that point.
The Prime Minister and President Yeltsin also discussed the risk of the proliferation of scientific expertise in the field of weapons of mass destruction and the steps the Russians are taking to prevent it. They agreed that we should have further discussion on how best we can help the Russian Republic and the other states of the former Soviet Union to use the talents of their scientists in the cause of peace. We shall follow up those discussions vigorously.
Given the uniquely destructive nature of nuclear weapons, it is sometimes easy to overlook the dangers of chemical weapons and biological weapons. That point was brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. It would be wrong if we were to do so.
The Government currently estimate that 20 countries possess or are seeking to possess a chemical weapons capability. As noble Lords will be aware, the Gulf crisis added further impetus to our efforts to prevent the proliferation of chemical weapons.
One of the ways to prevent this proliferation of chemical weapons is through an international treaty to ban them. It is one of this Government's arms control objectives to secure a global and effectively verifiable ban on chemical weapons. The UK has made a major contribution to the negotiations for a chemical weapons convention at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, and we will press for the convention to be concluded in 1992. The importance of securing a convention was emphasised in the presidential statement made by the Prime Minister at the Security Council Summit on 31st January, in which all Security Council members reiterated their support for efforts to complete the negotiations in 1992.
Biological weapons are also of great concern. The Government currently estimate that 10 countries possess or are seeking to possess a biological weapons capability. A treaty banning biological weapons does already exist. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention of 1972 was the first multilateral arms control treaty aimed at the complete elimination of an entire category of weapons. The convention has not eradicated the threat posed by biological warfare, as events demonstrated in the Gulf.
The Third Review Conference of the BTWC took place in Geneva from 9th to 27th September 1991. The UK played a major role in the negotiations and achieved two of our objectives at the conference strengthening the convention. The first was a decision to establish an ad hoc group of experts to identify and examine potential measures of verification. The second was to make major improvements in the confidence building measures, which provide for the exchange of information between states parties to the convention.
It is also possible to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons by the implementation of export controls. The international forum for
760
co-ordinating action on national export controls against the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is the Australia Group, a point brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It was set up in 1985 under Australian chairmanship. It comprises EC member states, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Japan, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden and Finland. Meetings are informal and controls agreed by member states are implemented on a national basis. As the Prime Minister said in New York recently, the United Kingdom has decided to apply controls over specific biological materials as a further strengthening of our control system.
We are already seeking meetings with the Commonwealth of Independent States on export controls on proliferation. We welcome the Russian announcement that they will introduce export controls and that they support the efforts of the Australia Group.
The threat posed by weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, depends also on the means of delivering them. I think it therefore appropriate to say something about the British Government's efforts to control proliferation of ballistic missiles.
The attempts by some countries to buy or produce weapons of mass destruction have been matched by equally disturbing attempts to acquire ballistic missiles. These systems are uniquely destabilising. Their use against civilian targets by Iraq has further underlined the need to prevent their proliferation.
That is why we and our G7 partners set up the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in April 1987. Members now meet more frequently to exchange information and to take stock of current performance. The effectiveness of the regime has also been enhanced by the adoption of an updated and expanded annex detailing the equipment and technologies covered by the regime. We are looking too at improving harmonisation of implementation by all member countries.
I should now like to address points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked for our views on GPALS. The United Kingdom approach to anti-ballistic missile defences remains based on the six points agreed by the then Prime Minister and President Reagan in 1984 and 1986. Recent announcements have been related to defences against limited ballistic missile strikes, as President Bush said,
"without undermining the credibility of existing deterrent forces."
We now come to Trident. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, questioned the need for the capability which Trident will provide, but we will need to bear in mind that the development of an anti-ballistic missile defences amendment to the 1972 ABM treaty so as to allow an increase in size of ABM defences seems increasingly probable. President Yeltsin spoke of the possibility of a global defence system.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, as is his wont, questioned Trident, but I say to him that our commitment is to maintain a minimum deterrent. We

761
shall deploy no more warheads than are necessary to achieve this. It is entirely consistent with our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which does not prohibit the maintenance of an effective and up-to-date deterrent.
Polaris came in in the mid-1960s; Trident will take us well into the next century. That is the point I wish to make to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and which was totally understood by my noble friends Lady Strange and Lord Orr-Ewing.
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, mentioned the issue of a comprehensive test ban. The United Kingdom's position continues to be that as long as our requirement for a minimum nuclear deterrent remains, we will need to undertake underground nuclear tests from time to time, to maintain the effectiveness and safety of our nuclear weapons.
The noble Lord, Lord Kagan, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, as well as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the role of the United Nations, especially in Iraq, in international police or monitoring forces. The Government not only support but in many cases have led efforts in the United Nations in the non-proliferation field. The UN register of arms transfers, the special commission in Iraq and the resolve on arms control and proliferation displayed by the Security Council at the meeting presided over by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last month come immediately to mind.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Cocks, commented upon Israel's nuclear programme. We have no firm evidence, either to confirm or deny the rumours that Israel may have nuclear weapons. There have been repeated assurances from the Israeli Government that they will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. We wish to draw attention to the support which we have given to the proposals to create a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Cheshire, and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing commented upon the requirement and necessity for intelligence. Clearly, in the fight to combat proliferation, reliable information is a key asset. Noble Lords would not expect me to comment in detail upon this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, talked about non-proliferation. The non-proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. The NPT enhances the security of parties by constraining the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other countries. This will continue to be the case, whether or not the CTB is agreed. We do not believe that a ban on testing would change the policies of states not currently parties to the NPT or that current parties would abandon their treaty obligations because a comprehensive test ban was not in prospect. A test ban would not stop proliferation. Iraq came close to achieving a nuclear capability without testing.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that regarding tactical weapons, it was agreed at Alma-Ata and Minsk that tactical weapons outside Russia would be transferred to central facilities by 1st July this year for dismantling.
762
In conclusion, I sum up by saying that I believe that what I have had to say tonight on behalf of the Government represents the clear proof of the urgency with which the British Government are tackling the issues on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I can assure your Lordships that the British Government for their part will not slacken in their efforts to combat the menace presented by these weapons. We are confident that they will have the support of all those in your Lordships' House in their endeavours.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, there are many points in the interesting debate tonight that I should like to take up, but of course this is not the time to do it. I was not especially enlightened by the noble Earl's comments on GPALs. I had hoped to obtain a little more from him about the Government's attitude, but perhaps we may return to that at a later date.
I wish to set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, at rest. Irony is a fragile rhetorical device and it usually comes to pieces in one's hands. It came to pieces in mine today. I certainly did not wish to give any impression that I should like to see the cold war back and I hope that he will accept that from me.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, had me worried for a while, but we ended up far enough apart to keep us both happy. I wish also to express my appreciation to the noble Earl for the full and informative way in which he replied to the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Business
5.49 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I make a short business statement. In accordance with the wishes of the House, the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill has been the subject of discussion through the usual channels. As a result of these discussions we have decided that, in spite of the inconvenience this may cause to some noble Lords, it is better, on balance, to revert to the original plan and take the Second Reading a week on Friday.
I wish to add that I thought my original proposal would be to the convenience of most noble Lords who had wished to take part in discussions and that it was right to fill an apparent gap in tomorrow's business. Those were the only considerations I had in mind. However, there are obviously many in this House who feel it is better to keep to the original programme. I am quite content that we should now take that course.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we on this side of the House warmly welcome the Statement which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just made. We strongly believe that the rearrangement of Business is very much in the long-term interests of this House.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we on these Benches are also grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for responding to the expressions of view that have been heard all around the House this afternoon. Of course there are inconvenient aspects to dealing with Scottish business on a Friday. There are inconvenient aspects to taking Scottish business at 36 hours' notice. However, the important matter that the noble Lord has recognised is that it is much better to do these things by agreement.

The Scottish Economy
5.51 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy rose to call attention to the economy in Scotland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lady said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I must say how delighted I am that so many noble Lords have decided to speak in this debate. I am particularly delighted that my noble friend Lord Kintore, the noble Lord, Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, have chosen to make their maiden speeches on this occasion. I look forward to hearing their contributions. I myself made my maiden speech exactly 12 years ago today almost to the hour. I well remember how nerve-racking it was. I also wish to record my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Chalfont for reducing the time allocated to his debate to two hours to allow this debate to run for three hours.
The economy in Scotland is suffering because uncertainty regarding the shape of the future government of Scotland is not conducive to that increased investment in Scottish industry which would hasten the end of the recession. In that context we should listen carefully to the views of the CBI and the Institute of Directors on the effect of the various options which have been suggested. However, despite black spots such as Ravenscraig, it is important to remember that all is not gloom on the economic front in Scotland. The Scottish economy is growing faster than the economy in the United Kingdom as a whole. There are particularly bright spots such as oil, North Sea gas, electronics, food processing, the order for frigates to be built at Yarrow's shipyard, the timber processing industry and plans to create jobs in the Holy Loch area after the departure of the United States Navy.
Having said that, there are steps which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take in his Budget to stimulate investment. He could temporarily reinstate the 100 per cent. capital allowances that were abolished in 1984 by Nigel Lawson. Provided a tight time limit was imposed—say, six to eight months—an immediate upsurge in capital expenditure by companies would be virtually guaranteed and the extra economic growth generated would make the cost negligible. Next he could boost the sale of new cars by abolishing the 10 per cent. sales tax. The VAT on the extra cars sold would go a long way towards paying for that. At the same time he could reduce the road
764
fund tax on new cars using lead free petrol, so creating a real incentive to change polluting old bangers for new cars.
Finally, the Chancellor could stimulate the housing market by increasing mortgage tax relief for first-time buyers—thereby following the example of President Bush—to be funded by reducing mortgage tax relief for existing home owners. Surely it is wise to spend money on stimulating the economy and thus increasing employment even if that means income tax cannot be reduced at present.
I now turn to various aspects of the rural economy where the Government could perhaps take positive steps to stimulate growth or alleviate problems. Modern society makes demands upon rural industry, particularly with respect to environmental considerations, animal welfare and other such matters, for which it is not prepared to pay. Those demands impose a heavy extra burden on industries such as farming and forestry which are already struggling. The possibility of unhelpful changes in the common agricultural policy and an unsatisfactory outcome to the GATT negotiations have created uncertainty and a rural recession and investment blight which may well last beyond the end of the general recession. How then can investment be attracted into an area which regulations, restrictions and conservation politics among other factors are making less and less attractive for the investor who has a world of less risky and more hassle free options to choose from?
The processing sector of the timber industry is undoubtedly suffering from the recession. Margins are tiny or non-existent and the market depressed. Yet the wood processors are increasing their demand for home grown timber, of which the supply to our mills has increased by 35 per cent. between 1987 and 1990, with a further growth of up to 25 per cent. predicted for 1990 to 1993. Despite the recession, production is up and the share of the market captured by our industry is increasing dramatically.
All that is good, but the sawmills are working on trees planted about 50 to 60 years ago. The supply of home grown timber is due to peak in 2025 and is expected to fall away after that. There is concern that the 20 million tonnes of home grown softwood timber required to keep the processors going will not then be available. There has been a dramatic fall-off in new planting since the abolition of Schedule D in March 1988. In the year ending 31st March 1991 new planting accounted for less than half the Government's target of 33,000 hectares. Will the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to reverse that trend? Helpful measures might include extending tax exemption to corporate owners; exemption from inheritance tax; tax relief on loans to buy land and increased planting and management grant rates which should be index linked.
The problems of farming in Scotland are perhaps even more severe than in the United Kingdom as a whole. The National Farmers Union of Scotland believes that many aspects of the so-called accompanying measures to the European Commission's proposals for CAP reform could mitigate the pressure on Scottish farm incomes which will intensify as

765
market support diminishes. The encouragement to extensify production methods foreseen in the agricultural/environmental proposals could help towards reducing supply to markets and work in line with increasing consumer interest in the way food is produced.
In a recently published booklet entitled Our Farming Future the Government have said that their proposals for CAP reform envisage a greater role for environmentally targeted policies. The NFU would like to see the Government translate that sentiment into cash support for the accompanying measures. The proposals for pre-pensions will need to be more flexible to be of potential use in Scotland because it is envisaged that eligibility would be tied to an increase in the size of holding. The Government are about to announce improvements to the farm woodland premium scheme. Perhaps, with the support of Community funding, the Government could increase incentives in this area.
In recent years diminishing stocks of fish have made conservation measures and a reduction in the total allowable catch a necessary part of European Community and United Kingdom fishery policy. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation accepts that. The problem lies in deciding which measures will be both most effective and least damaging to the industry. The fishermen are disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take advantage of the generous grants available from the European Community towards a decommissioning scheme for fishing boats with a view to reducing by 30 per cent. the size of the fishing fleet and thus the effort put into catching fish. I cannot understand why the Government will not take advantage of that measure. I do not believe their arguments against such a scheme are valid.
As a result the fishermen have been obliged to accept the 135-day tie-up rule, with an alternative of using 110mm. mesh size nets and half the number of days' tie-up or 120mm. mesh size nets and no tie-up. While on the east coast of England, where the principal fishery is for cod, that may be a viable alternative, in northern Scotland, where the fishing is mainly for haddock and whiting, it is not a viable alternative because they are smaller fish than cod and with 110 mm. mesh nets one would catch few haddock and no whiting. Thus fishermen are forced to opt for the 135 day tie-up scheme.
Last September the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposed to Ministers an alternative approach to decommissioning to that provided under the European Community regulations. I wonder whether in his winding-up speech the noble Lord will tell us whether progress has been made along those lines. The Scottish White Fish Producers' Association believes that a combination of a decommissioning scheme, the introduction of a one net rule, a ban on industrial fishing and the licensing of all salesmen and buyers of fish would be so effective as to make the restrictive tie-up unnecessary.
Both the Scottish White Fish Producers' Association and the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association have expressed interest in the proposals in
766
the European Commission's 1991 report that consideration be given to introducing multi-species total allowable catches. Whereas now they are fixed on a species by species basis, fishing in a mixed stock fishery such as the North Sea and west of Scotland commercial fisheries may have to be halted because the quota of one species, is used up, or, if fishing continues for other species, discarding will have to take place if fishermen are to abide by the rules, or sales to the black market if they do not. Discarding is not only wasteful and inimical to conservation but, since most of the fish are dead, leads to pollution and possible risk to the health of stocks.
In that context it might be helpful if the minimum landing size for whiting were to be the same as the minimum landing size for haddock. The associations have also expressed interest in the Commission's proposals that total allowable catches might be fixed on a multi-annual basis. That would bring an element of stability to the industry as well as doing away with the intense negotiating round at the end of every year.
The Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association is unhappy that the arrangements for landing and transhipment of catches require to be designated by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. It considers that where the fish are caught should have no bearing on where they are landed and that arrangements for landing should depend entirely on commercial and practical considerations. White fish catchers can catch white fish off the west coast of Scotland and land them at ports on the east coast and vice versa if they wish. Can the noble Lord say why there should be a different rule for pelagic catches? The pelagic fishing industry is beginning to suffer from the lack of mackerel klondikers waiting to buy their catches due to the economic problems in the Russian commonwealth. Would it be possible for aid to Russia to take the form of helping their klondikers to continue to buy our mackerel? On the credit side, fish and prawn processing plants are on the increase, and that is good news.
The distilling of whisky is another very important industry in rural areas. The industry believes that it would be very much in the national interest to end the present discrimination against spirits in favour of treating all alcoholic drinks on the same tax basis, which should be based on alcohol content. Perhaps the noble Lord will put pressure on his Treasury colleagues to be more sympathetic to the whisky industry's desire for a level playing field. I think that my noble friend Lord Palmer will say more about that and also about tourism, which has grown vastly in recent years despite a set-back last year.
Tourism is of course an industry which is very much at the mercy of the exchange rate. One small worry is that the imposition of commercial rates on bed and breakfast landladies who put up more than six people, and also food hygiene regulations, may drive many bed and breakfast landladies out of business. Can the Government help with that problem?
Good public transport is also crucial for the tourist industry. Can the Government give any assurances as

767
to the future of passenger rail services north of Edinburgh and Glasgow and say whether there is any prospect of electrifying the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in the foreseeable future?
The upturn in the oil industry in recent years has ensured the prosperity of Aberdeen and a wide area surrounding it. Here the worry must be that eventually, possibly in about 30 years' time or perhaps longer, the oil will run out, with dire consequences for Aberdeen. I believe that it is not too soon to start trying to plan for that sad day. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the Minister will have views on that subject.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the plans of the Cowal peninsula task force for developing the area in the wake of the departure of the United States Navy from Holy Loch. They make inspiring reading, with their emphasis on helping the local people to help themselves and their aim of encouraging small businesses so that the area shall never again be dependent on one large employer. Perhaps something on the same lines might be done in and around Motherwell in the wake of the closure of Ravenscraig, and in other areas when the necessity arises.
I have said enough. I beg leave to move for Papers.
6.4 p.m.
Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden: My Lords, I am a businessman and a lover of things artistic, unreservedly so in both respects. I would, however, seek your Lordships' indulgence on this special occasion to speak about another subject which is dear to my heart.
I wish to speak about an entity which has enjoyed greatness in the past, has gone through the depths of decline and has emerged in a manner which promises its restoration to greatness in the future. It is an entity which has enjoyed the highest reputation among its customers, and which extended its influence to almost every part of the globe.
Times changed, however. Turnover fell; customers disappeared; reinvestment did not take place on a sufficient scale; able people left and competitive pressures arose. The decline and the necessary restructuring were painful. However, through it all a confidence in the future was retained, and now it has emerged with a powerful sense of mission and a corporate culture which encourages freedom of action, initiative, collaboration and, most importantly, partnership.
The entity to which I refer is not a commercial company, but a city. A city, however, which increasingly thinks, acts and responds like a business and knows what it takes to be successful in the business of cities. I am, of course, describing Scotland's largest city, Glasgow.
Glasgow's economic base is being transformed by the injection of modern value-added service activities and, wherever possible, by the modernisation of the manufacturing sector. Glasgow is now recognised internationally as a market leader in urban regeneration. Forewarned by the seemingly irreversible decline experienced in many other cities throughout the world, innovative policies of partnership have attracted city centre and other planned
768
investments amounting to nearly £2 billion, the vast majority of which is arms length profit seeking, private sector investment.
Glasgow now stands on the threshold of once again becoming one of Europe's great cities;: great in the sense not only of prosperity but of completeness as a city, a city of opportunity, a city of environment, a city of culture and a city of real community.
Glasgow is a city which has literally got its act together. Partnership has been the crucial factor in the regeneration of Glasgow. The Scottish Development Agency was established in 1975 and from its loins Glasgow Action emerged. Glasgow Action was private sector led and it provided the necessary catalyst between the public and the private sectors in the city. Since then the still private sector led Glasgow Development Agency has been set up, taking over from Glasgow Action and furthering the close and necessary relationship with Glasgow City Council, Strathclyde Regional Council and every other major institution in Glasgow.
Political, religious, ideological and bureaucratic prejudices and differences have been set aside in the interests of the greater good of the city. All the organisations which can make a contribution to the process of regeneration in Glasgow are being encouraged to work together for the common good.
However, Glasgow has by no means solved all its problems. We have 25 per cent. of Scotland's unemployed in the city, and the concentration of unemployment and other aspects of deprivation in the outlying housing estates is still an enormous challenge. Almost 50 per cent. of the population of Scotland is dependent on the economic performance of Glasgow, so we must get Glasgow right if the Scottish economy is to flourish.
Investment is required from both Government and business, but that investment will reap substantial rewards because Glasgow is not only a city of great need but also a city of great opportunity. It has the potential to become a major asset and contributor to the economic and cultural base of our country. This is true not only of Glasgow, although Glasgow is at present showing the way for other major British cities to revive, regenerate and play their full part in the economy of the country.
To encourage that process I would suggest that a recast regional and urban policy must look beyond the excitement of the East Thames corridor and London Docklands and aim at the economic revival of the United Kingdom's proud provincial cities. A national programme is needed for the revival of the provincial cities which can be the economic powerhouses of the 1990s. It could be piloted in Glasgow which has a long and innovative record of regeneration.
Perhaps I may seek the forbearance of your Lordships for this personal commitment to the future of my own city, but it is difficult for me to be other than enthusiastic having lived through Glasgow's decline and witnessed and participated in its renaissance and seen the potential of its future. I would invite your Lordships to ensure that the most worthy goal of realising the full potential of the country which we serve embraces not only the

769
concentrated and congested area of economic activity in the South East but includes the great cities of the United Kingdom such as Glasgow which offer the potential to become even greater major national assets in the future.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I welcome the debate and thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving us the opportunity to discuss Scotland's economy. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden for the very informative speech he has just made. In view of the short time I have available I cannot go much further than to say that we in Scotland know that Lord MacFarlane is a great Scot in his own time and, if I may say so, is very worthy of his place in your Lordships' House. We look forward to hearing a lot more from him in future.
The Motion draws attention to the economy of Scotland, to which the cynics (or perhaps nowadays the realists) would respond, what economy? What was once a rich nation—Scotland—has been ravaged, first, by the rapid and massive decline of its heavy industries, the final nail in the industrial coffin being the rape of Ravenscraig by British Steel, whose reasons to justify the closure remain obscure. But enough has been said about that and I shall leave it for the time being.
Secondly, successive recessions under this Government have probably affected Scotland more than any other area of the United Kingdom, apart perhaps from the Midlands. Perhaps the Motion should have drawn attention to the state of the Scottish economy and posed these questions. Is it in a good state? Is it in a bad state? Is it in no state at all? Having heard the noble Lady introduce the debate, it is clear she would not have had to make the suggestions she did make if the Scottish economy was not in a bad state.
I do not wish to talk down Scotland or its people, but it can be fairly said that Scotland has nothing more than a patchwork economy with no shape or pattern. That is not to ignore the new contracts which we hear about from time to time such as those won by the Yarrow shipyard. But the fact that each new contract is welcomed with a fanfare of government trumpets indicates the state of the economy. There is no sense of direction and no structured investment in the working of the economy. It is being left to float in the market and as far as the Government are concerned the industries, companies or firms can sink or swim.
The figures for 1991 are startling. A recent report showed that more Scottish businesses failed in 1991 than ever before. Over the past 12 months 7,950 firms collapsed. That is an average of 32 for every working day of the year and represents an increase of 76.9 per cent. over 1990. That demonstrates that Scotland is now catching up with the rest of the United Kingdom. Of course the Grampian area is wealthy and is becoming wealthier, but if one takes Grampian out of the Scottish equation, the country faces a pretty gloomy prospect. One asks, how can the country
770
survive on that basis? The answer is that it cannot. It is difficult to find anyone to give a hopeful forecast. As recently as January 1991 the Scottish Chambers of Commerce said there were no signs of recovery and,
"There is no tangible evidence that the Scottish economy started to move out of the recession in the fourth quarter of 1991",
No one knows when it is going to move, if it is going to move at all. What is required—as the noble Lord, Lord MacFarlane, perhaps hinted at—is a more structured approach to industry and the rest of it and the establishment of proper development agencies bringing everyone together, looking at the country and the area as a whole and asking, where are we going? If it is necessary for the Government to restore regional grants to revive the economy, that must be the price the country must pay to restore the Scottish economy. In any economy the strong should look after the weak and if that means government help, it should be given.
I should like to say a special word about the Western Isles. The Western Isles have the most fragile economy. I say nothing about the BCCI affair because enough has been said about it already and I do not think it matters any more. But I urge the Government to take a close look at the economy of the Western Isles independently of the BCCI liability. There has been a fivefold increase in the community charge; it has gone from £26 to £122. But in an economy like that that means a lot of money.
In every aspect of economic life the Western Isles are below the UK average in GDP, per capita income and unemployment, which at 13 per cent. is the highest in Scotland. Because of the heavy input of the local authority into the economy, the area must be looked at in a special light independent of the BCCI affair. The local authority is responsible for 22.4 per cent. of household income and 27.4 per cent. of full-time equivalent jobs in the Western Isles. If that base is wrecked the economy is wrecked. The textile industry, fishing and fish farming are under pressure and the Harris tweed industry is in decline.
The Government must recognise that unless something is done the economy of the Western Isles will go into terminal decline and we may as well shut the doors. The Western Isles cannot benefit from economies of scale. They have no manufacturing base. They must be treated as a special case. Since 1976 when it was established the Western Isles council has done a lot to stabilise the economy of the islands with further education and so on, but they have a declining population. In the 10 years up to 1991 the population declined by 8.7 per cent. If the disaster which is hitting the Western Isles continues, there will be a haemorrhage of young people from the islands. If the young and the skilled leave the islands because there is nothing for them to do, the islands will die.
Before I sit down perhaps I may ask the Government the following question. If they are prepared to put £100 million into the Stirling area—the cynics will say that it may have been done for a political reason—is there no money left in the kitty for an in-depth look at the Western Isles on a purely

771
objective basis to decide what must be done for the economy of the islands, whether it be tourism, fishing or other industries?
Perhaps the state of Scotland at the moment is best summed up by the words of Mr. Bill Anderson, Scottish secretary of the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses. He has described the recent figures as "frightening". I close by quoting his words:
"I knew that they were going to be bad, but never for a moment did I think they were going to be anything like this … In Scotland, we are no longer cutting into the fat, we are now into the bone".
6.19 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Saltoun of Abernethy for introducing this important debate and thus giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech, for which I crave the indulgence of the House, and to thank her for all her kindness and guidance since I have been a Member of this House.
My forebear was so against the Union that he petitioned Parliament to try to prevent it. Parliament paid no attention to him. I trust I shall not suffer a similar fate this evening.
I should like to concentrate on one agricultural matter and hope the noble Lord will give a positive reply when he winds up the debate. It concerns the continuing ban on the export of live pedigree cattle because of BSE. I speak in particular about pedigree Highland cattle and possibly I should declare an interest. My wife and I farm in partnership. She has a small fold of Highland cattle. It is an ideal arrangement: she organises for all the hard work to be done and I share in the profits.
However, profits are getting much harder to come by. For example, the average price achieved for a typical export animal—a two year-old heifer—at the autumn sale in Oban in 1989 was £2,421, falling in 1990 to £1,962 and falling again in 1991 to £1,498. The home market can absorb so much but for any real recovery we need to get back into the continental markets, particularly Germany, Austria, France and Holland. The known value of exports of pedigree Highland cattle before the ban was approaching £100,000. Galloway cattle, another native breed exported in the last pre-ban year, had a value of just over £750,000. Although small beer compared with some of the amounts mentioned in debates in this House, £850,000 is a significant amount of money to hard-pressed Scottish beef breeders.
Speaking at the dinner in Oban to celebrate the 100th spring show and sale of Highland cattle on 25th February 1991, the Minister said:
"I turn now to the BSE issue and the export ban. I have considerable sympathy with the Highland Cattle Society's desire for a derogation which would allow the resumption of live pedigree cattle exports to member states. I acknowledge that the incidence of confirmed cases of BSE among the Highland cattle breed has been very low. Indeed there has only been one case in a pure bred animal and one in a cross-bred. Other pedigree societies—the Galloway, Luing, Aberdeen Angus and Shorthorn—have a similar low incidence of BSE. Against this background I can understand your frustration at the halt to export trade. However, I have to stress that BSE has been an extremely sensitive issue for
772
some member states. To achieve a derogation for pedigree exports we shall need to marshal the scientific evidence in support of our case and address the concerns of the likely importing countries. It is the Government's view that the timing is not yet right".
That is from a speech made almost a year ago. The ban remains and the frustration continues.
A press report in my local paper a fortnight ago indicated that Irish farmers, following diplomatic and commercial lobbying, were about to get back into their traditional Middle East and North African markets. If the Irish story is true, I hope that following similar initiatives Scottish beef farmers will also shortly be allowed back into their traditional markets.
6.24 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, it is a very special privilege for me to be in a position to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, on his interesting and extremely important maiden speech. I am sure the House will join me in hoping that we shall hear many more speeches of that calibre from him in the future.
I should like to speak about tourism in Scotland. Like many others in my position, I have converted part of my estate into a country park or leisure centre. We get about 75,000 visitors a year and are always trying to think up ways of getting more. This year in our craft shop we are selling a badge in the shape of a crocodile which states: "Send us more tourists; the last lot were delicious". As noble Lords may know, tourism is Scotland's single largest industry. According to the Scottish Tourist Board over 9 per cent. of the population are employed in tourism—about 160,000 employees and 25,000 self-employed.
Scotland has a lot to offer the visitor. Yet, despite its many natural attractions, its ability to attract tourists is not much better than average. For instance, only 10 per cent of overseas visitors to Britain come to Scotland. That is not particularly impressive. Of course, Glasgow airport has only recently been enlarged and more overseas carriers now fly direct into Scotland rather than going first to London. We hope that that will result in improving the statistics.
There seem to be two particular problems facing Scottish tourism. The first is the short season. Most visitors come to Scotland in July and August. Some come in May, June, September and October. But the number of holidaymakers who come in other months is negligible. Therefore many hotels and tourist attractions not in the central belt (which is slightly different) must close down or run at a loss for six months of the year. That means that many tourist-related businesses have to make enough money in the six good months to sustain them for the rest of the year—rather like squirrels before going into hibernation. In that sense, tourism in Scotland is a very odd industry. Attempts are always being made to extend the season but so far they have not been very successful.
The second problem is the cumbersome way in which tourism is managed in Scotland. In theory, the Scottish Tourist Board is meant to be responsible for promoting tourism and improving visitor facilities. In practice, the Scottish Tourist Board has only limited

773
power over tourism. Many other government and local government bodies as well as quangos have their fingers in the pie.
For instance, there is Highland and Islands Enterprise, formerly the HIDB, which is largely responsible for tourism in its territory. That territory includes most of Scotland's wildest and most dramatic scenery. There is the British Tourist Authority, which has the statutory responsibility for promoting Scotland abroad, although the STB also has some resources for overseas marketing. There are the 30 or more area tourist boards set up by the Scottish Tourist Board which tend in practice to be controlled by the local district councils. Perhaps inevitably they stick jealously to their own district or country boundaries which do not necessarily coincide with natural tourist areas. There are the district and city councils themselves which are responsible for planning and encouraging tourist development in their areas. Then there are the regional councils which, although not directly responsible for tourism, have, for instance, the power to set up regional parks. There are now the new local enterprise boards which have money to invest and are actively attempting to develop the tourist potential in their areas.
Then there is the Countryside Commission, soon to become part of Scottish National Heritage, which is responsible in particular for visitor centres and the countryside ranger services. There is the Forestry Commission and the National Trust for Scotland which own some of Scotland's most popular tourist attractions. Then there are privatised one-off bodies such as the Greater Glasgow Tourist Board. One of the reasons that that has been so successful is that, with the backing of Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde Regional Council, it is big and powerful enough to do its own thing without having to be dependent on other government bodies. In five years tourists to Glasgow have increased from 700,000 to 3 million. Following the Glasgow experience, we now have Edinburgh Marketing setting itself up in healthy competition.
My point is that tourism in Scotland is being administered by so many bodies and quangos, some jealously guarding their own territory or sphere of influence, that it is difficult to identify any coherent national tourist policy and very difficult for potential investors to know with whom they should be dealing. The Scottish Office has set up a Scottish tourist co-ordinating group which meets twice a year, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. This suggests that the Government recognise the need for co-ordination but they are a long way from solving the problem.
It seems to me that we need one powerful unifying body, which the STB should be but is not, responsible for marketing Scotland through Great Britain and the world, and under it a dozen or so tourist boards representing identifiable and marketable tourist areas or focal points such as the Firth of Clyde, Loch Lomond, Edinburgh, the Western Highlands or the east coast golf courses—areas not dictated by district or county boundaries; in fact with no definite
774
boundaries at all because each tourist board should bleed freely into its neighbours' territories. Of course each of the boards would need to work and co-operate with local government and other bodies, but they must also be wealthy and powerful enough, like the Greater Glasgow Tourist Board, to work independently if necessary.
Tourism is vitally important to Scotland's economy and it is going to face ever-increasing competition from other parts of the world. It has to be managed in the most efficient way possible, and that must be done with flair and imagination.
6.31 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I am grateful and very honoured to be given this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I am acutely aware of the great experience many of your Lordships are able to bring to bear on all the subjects that are debated in the House. I hope your Lordships will forgive my inexperience and that I shall be able to contribute to the debate in a positive way.
This debate could not have been tabled at a more appropriate time. Scottish devolution or independence is being actively debated in all quarters of the United Kingdom, and for once these discussions are not merely being confined to the more interesting drinking establishments of our native cities. The Scottish media, I am glad to say, are focusing on the more important issues, as opposed to the mere romantic notion of Scotland's independence; namely, that of the economic cost to Scotland if the Union were to be permanently severed. The economy of Scotland fares rather better than some other parts of the United Kingdom, but we are faced with one of the world's worst recessions this century and, in the words of some economic commentators, the worst for 60 years.
Many parts of the Scottish economy are doing well. The oil and gas business, despite the relatively low price of North Sea oil, fares better than most and, as a result, the economy of the city of Aberdeen is buoyant, in marked contrast to its southern counterparts. The whisky business has not been so healthy for many decades and as the quality end of the market expands so will the profitability of the industry. Our businesses—those that have survived the recession so far—are more competitive than ever, but times are very tough for many companies in many sectors of the Scottish economy. The construction industry expects to have shed 250,000 jobs in the United Kingdom over the course of the last two years and during 1992. Many employers in the industry are seriously concerned that this will produce a "skills vacuum" in years to come, when the recession does end.
The hotel and tourism industry, so important to the economy of Scotland, is suffering its worst slump in memory. The North Americans who have graced our shores for so long have stayed at home. Economic woes in the United States and Canada, together with the punitive exchange rate, have nailed the coffin lid shut. The continental tourist market, which to a certain extent has taken up some of the slack, is

775
showing signs of slowing as the world recession starts to affect the economies of our neighbours. Even mighty Germany shows signs of faltering, and Japan has issued directives to its banks not to invest in overseas property-related projects until times are more stable in the economic powerhouse of the world.
Despite well-reported Japanese hotel investments related to golf in Scotland, there have been no investments made in this sector during the last 12 months and there are not likely to be any during the next 12 months. On a lighter note, your Lordships might be interested to know that there are no fewer than 13 million registered Japanese golfers. These golfers pay an average of £200,000 each to become lifetime members of golf clubs in Japan. In an interesting extrapolation of the figures it might be possible to attract each golfer to the cultural home of Scotland at least once in his or her lifetime. If one assumes a generation lasts 20 years, that would mean half a million or more Japanese golfers visiting Scotland every year. Just think what this could do for our economy if it could be realistically tapped!Perhaps this will give my noble friend Lord Strathclyde food for thought when the Japanese are allowed by their government to invest in Scotland.
It is my hope that the economic recovery, when it does come —and I can say now that I see no sign of it arriving this year—will start in Scotland and the North of England, where the average citizen is less indebted than his southern counterpart and therefore is more likely to start spending sooner. For this recovery to take place it is critical that not only company managers should feel confident, but also that employees and their families should feel confident. In other words, they feel that they have money to spend and will continue to have that money to spend in a years' time or maybe two or three year's time.
Let us examine the meaning of "confidence" for a moment. It is derived from job security and therefore economic security and political security. We have only to look at present-day Russia to see what lack of confidence on a massive scale can do. How can we possibly secure this confidence in Scotland while in the background a debate on the country's political future is under way? Quite rightly, both companies and individuals are worried about the cost of a separate Scotland. If it could be proved conclusively that Scotland would be financially better-off on its own, do your Lordships not think the opportunity would have been grasped earlier? Instead, Scotland may lose its opportunity to come out of the recession faster than its English neighbour because some of its leaders insist on introducing additional "wild cards" in our country's future. I urge your Lordships to persuade yourselves to think of Scotland's economic well-being first and foremost and to put head before heart, to enable Scotland to come out of this recession first, and not last, among equals.
If there is to be a debate about Scotland's political future, let that be a full and frank debate with hard economic facts to support each major party's view; but let us put this to one side until economic recovery is well under way. We shall otherwise put a major
776
question mark over further organic growth and future inward investment in the Scottish economy. I thank your Lordships for your time and the courtesy you have extended to me in listening to my maiden speech.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, as a comparative newcomer to your Lordships' House, it is a great honour and pleasure for me to congratulate, on behalf of the whole House, the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, on his well-informed and amusing maiden speech. The thought of these thousands of Japanese running over the whole of Scotland is indeed daunting. I am sure we shall all greatly benefit from his wide experience, especially on Scottish affairs, and we look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future.
I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lady Saltoun for introducing this debate. Each time I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships I have concentrated on the serious problems facing agriculture. These problems, I am sure, especially where Scotland is concerned, will be well aired by other noble Lords, as indeed was done by my noble friend Lord Kintore, in his excellent maiden speech. I therefore propose, in the brief time allowed, to raise two points both of which concern two of Scotland's major growth industries. First, there is the whisky industry, which now accounts for over one-third of United Kingdom food and drink exports and is Scotland's largest export. These export sales have almost tripled in value in the last decade, and whisky is now exported to over 200 markets throughout the world. At home, the Scotch whisky industry directly employs some 16,000 people and when all the ancillary industries, such as cereal production, advertising, printing, packaging, distribution, retailing and tourism are taken into account, that figure rises to very nearly 1 million people. Nor must it be forgotten that this industry alone makes an annual contribution of around £1 billion to government revenue.
To show real concern for such an important industry with these impressive vital statistics, the Government must ensure that the present tax differentials between wine, spirits and beer are not increased. They must strive to set the lowest possible minimum rate for spirits and for Scotch whisky in particular. This issue is important, indeed crucial, if our Scotch whisky industry is to continue to thrive and to play such a key role in Scotland's economy, with the resultant benefit to the livelihood and prosperity of us all.
The second point which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention is the vital role which tourism plays in the Scottish economy. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, has already mentioned that. I do not share his view that there are too many quangos doing their best to support the Scottish tourist industry. I must declare an interest as I own a small tourist attraction. The additional £1 million financial assistance promised to the Scottish Tourist Board for the coming year is most welcome. I fervently hope that the Government will continue to support

777
the tourism industry, which is, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, said, now going from strength to strength, as I shall try to illustrate.
Tourism is now Scotland's largest industry, sustaining 185,000 people in full-time employment and generating £1.4 billion in the local economy, which represents about 5 per cent. of Scotland's gross domestic product. Therefore, tourism is a significant enterprise at the heart of Scotland's economy, and it is only right and proper that the Government should support the efforts of the Scottish Tourist Board and others.
Last year was obviously a difficult one, beset by the problems of the Gulf War and the start of the recession. Nevertheless the 10-year figures show a most healthy growth. Employment has increased by 17 per cent., which means 2,500 new jobs each year have been created. With other industries in major decline, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that is a substantial increase.
As my noble friend Lady Saltoun said, undoubtedly there are sectors of the industry that fared less well last year, such as the bed and breakfast category which inevitably suffered due to the drop of some 12 per cent. in overseas visitors. However, I and many of my colleagues in the tourism industry feel that with continued government help the trend upwards of those encouraging figures will continue. There can not be many countries around the world which have such an impressive 10-year record.
The challenges over the next year or two are significant; for example, EuroDisney and the Channel tunnel. Scotland represents the antidote to EuroDisney. Its scenery, its heritage, its environment and, above all, its people cannot be mimicked in theme parks nor packaged and presented as an "experience". Nor, I should hasten to add, would anyone involved in the Scottish tourist industry wish that they could be.
As I have tried to show, all is not gloom and doom on the Scottish front. We must all hope that the Government will continue to support the tourism industry wherever they can, whilst doing everything in their power to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry is not unfairly treated. There are challenging times ahead for us all, and especially for those of us who live and work north of the Border. Let us hope and pray that, with a little bit of luck and continued support from the Government, those two vital industries will continue to grow and prosper well into the next century.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for initiating the debate. I suggest that we should have a similar debate every year. There is great advantage in having the views of Scotland brought to bear in this House so that we can know what the Government have in mind.
I enjoyed hearing what my noble friend Lord MacFarlane had to say about Glasgow. There have been great changes there. It is 50 years since I saw much of Glasgow. One loss has been the big liners. I do not know whether the noble Lord saw the "Queen
778
Elizabeth" and the "Queen Mary" being launched in the early 1930s. Such ships are not being produced today. P&O goes to Germany for ships of that quality which is very sad. At present I cannot suggest how the situation could be changed. We have lost that quality of workmanship and somehow it should be restored. I do not know whether the loss is due to the nature of the training now available; it is nevertheless a very sad situation.
I was glad to hear about the tourist industry. Many people from North America think they must travel to London to be anywhere near Scotland. One lady from Canada wanting to reach Prestwick was told that she must go to London. As we all know, that is sheer nonsense. It is a matter about which those in charge of the tourist industry should be kept fully informed.
There are things which I believe should be done. Today we have motorways. They were invented by Hitler who had them 20 years earlier than we did. We were slow to get going but today we have motorways to most corners of England and Wales: Northumberland, the West Country, Cardiff, Exeter, and Southampton. However, there is no road from the capital of England to the capital of Scotland. Why is that? It is a grave error of considerable economic importance. If one wishes to deliver goods, one must have a means of doing so. There is no motorway to Glasgow. I am told that the roads to Glasgow are being improved, but there is a long way to go.
The debate which preceded this one was on the subject of methods of modern warfare. The safest answer to the atomic bomb is good government. It is curious that where one finds bad government—for example, Yugoslavia—the people are now fighting. In contributing to the good government of this country, we make use of the atomic bomb less likely.
When one looks at the Commonwealth, which Scotland and England have produced, there are 50 countries which gaily and happily meet every year without dispute and which enjoy one another's company. We have made a great contribution by allowing people to live in peace and quiet in their own countries. That is a tremendous contribution. We shall see if Russia can achieve a commonwealth like that. I am extremely doubtful.
It is important that we should have proper roads in Scotland. Although I have not been to the Highlands recently, I have heard a good many complaints about the state of the roads there. Apparently, they are deteriorating. We must remember that Parliament is responsible for the structure of Scottish government. When the union took place, as most of your Lordships probably know, the government of Scotland was literally destroyed. There was no known form of government throughout the whole of the 18th century. There were people called managers. I do not know who they were. It was only at the end of the 19th century that Lord Rosebery, supporting the Prime Minister, who at that time was Lansdowne, persuaded the Government to appoint an officer for Scotland. About 20 years later a Secretary of State was appointed and 10 years later after that he was given a

779
house in which he could work. We can improve on that situation today and we have the responsibility to do so.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Polwarth did a tremendous job in Scotland in the early 1960s. Someone should be in a position to look at industry to see where improvements can be made. That would be a contribution of great value.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for inaugurating this debate at an important time in Scottish politics. I speak today as someone who has spent more of my life in Scottish local government and Scottish agriculture than almost anyone in this House. I am not in favour of home rule for Scotland. Scottish MPs have always taken an active part in UK politics. Scotland has provided the United Kingdom with no fewer than five Prime Ministers since 1902—Balfour, Campbell-Bannerman, Ramsay MacDonald, Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home. In the House of Lords we have provided many Peers to take an active part in the UK Parliament. All that would end if Scottish Parliament divided the United Kingdom and would be a great loss to both countries.
Scotland still has a great shipbuilding industry and, as has been said, an enormous agricultural industry. In the shipbuilding industry, apart from the great liners of history—the "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth"—we are building for the Navy and the Air Force. That is important at the present time.
Many noble Lords have spoken about agriculture. It is an important industry. Two-thirds of the land is known as less favoured areas. We provide sheep and cattle which are sold all over the world to the advantage of farmers. The fact that today there is a serious slump in sales and prices is producing a serious effect and we urge the Government to take a more positive part in the farming industry.
People living in towns and cities urgently require farms to keep the agricultural land in good condition; to enable them to walk upon the hills with no great difficulty and allow them to enjoy the country. It is the farming industry that can keep the land in such condition, to everyone's benefit, for what are now known as the "greens".
The form of a common agricultural policy is at present a difficult subject. But there is no doubt that it must be discussed and agreed before things will get any better. The present proposals are not acceptable either to farmers or to the Department of Agriculture. I have a list of farm returns which does not make good reading. The return to land, labour, capital and managerial skills fell by 11 per cent. in 1991. The total income returns have fallen by 4 per cent., and the farming income to families has dropped by 27 per cent.
There is hope that sheep prices may rise a little, due to the sheep annual premium and the LFA supplement. As store cattle and sheep are the biggest users of the Highlands in Scotland, in Wales and the North of England, it is vital that the right policy must
780
be pursued. The Government can act. Scottish MPs and Scottish people must remain as part of the United Kingdom where they play an important part.
Those things are all quickly said because of the five minute time limit. But the importance of Scottish politics cannot be exaggerated. I support those who are anxious to do all they can to enable the Government to preserve the importance of Scotland.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, one of the most impressive points in the speech of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, was its well-informed nature. I must say to her that she would help us enormously in Sub-Committee D where we are trying to examine in detail the complexities of the common fisheries policy. We would certainly welcome her. The other impressive point has been the speeches by the maiden speakers, particularly because they, unlike the old hands, have taken their guidance from the clock whereas most of us—one hopes—are taking our guidance from the Lord.
The only point I wish to make on the subject of what is known as the "Scottish Question" is this. I remember in another place, some 30 years ago, the all-party enthusiasm, the waving of Order Papers when it was announced that the motor car industry was going to Bathgate, followed by more motor cars to Linwood; then came the pulp mill at Fort William and the smelter at Invergordon. Alas, they all failed. The only question I ask myself is whether they would have succeeded; would they even have got there if there had been a Scottish Parliament or Assembly rather than the dynamo of the Macmillan government?
Having brought in 57 harvests it would seem rather foolish for me not to say a word on agriculture. One thing is absolutely certain; that change is unavoidable. The wheel has turned full circle. I must confess that the free market in 1934 when I started was not much fun. Uncertainty was the name of the game. One never knew what prices were going to be like from one year to the next. Today, however, we have better skills in the industry than we had then. What is of the greatest importance is that business mentality was almost totally lacking in those days. Nobody had heard of cost accounting. Gross margins and fixed costs—I always think that is a stupid description because they never are fixed—had never been heard of. Today, all that forms an important and recognised part of the farming industry.
I believe many young folk are keen to have a go, and it is essential that new blood should be more easily enabled to enter the industry. That touches upon the difficult subject of the landlord and tenant system. I know the heartbreak of going out of a farm; it is not easy. Yet to hand on a farm from generation to generation is not the way to obtain the best from it.
All in all, I am reasonably optimistic about the future of farming. It has again what we lacked all those years ago. Thanks to the tourist industry, which has been mentioned several times already, a wonderful market is brought to our doorstep—hoteliers in Scotland, excellent chefs, visitors coming up from

781
England, if only for the lobsters which cost half the price that they do in London. All that causes me to say that, although the wheel has gone full circle, I am reasonably optimistic.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, like other noble Lords I should like to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving us the opportunity this evening to discuss the Scottish economy. It is perhaps ironic that at a time when the economic situation in Scotland is much better than in many other parts of the United Kingdom, there should be a sudden or reasonably sudden turn towards total separation among those who have been polled in Scotland.
The recession has bitten less savagely in Scotland. No less than £4.2 billion worth of inward investment has been attracted to Scotland during the past decade. Government expenditure in Scotland has reached a higher level than ever before. Per head of population Scotland is receiving more than any other part of the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland. The industries are doing well; whisky, tourism, oil, gas and financial services are all established and doing very well in Scotland.
It saddens me when I hear Scotland being talked down as we have heard a little this evening. Scotland is a good place; it is a great country and a fine place in which to live and work. So why should there be discontent? It is possible that there is frustration of the kind that hits the English when they have to suffer a Labour government elected by Scottish and Welsh votes.
However, the main reason, in my view, is that the case for the Union has been allowed to go by default. It is only in recent months that a real attempt has been made to focus on the great benefits which we enjoy from our membership. I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on the very brave stand which he has taken in leading the way, ably assisted by my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, who took the same line recently at a conference at which he spoke in Scotland.
If the people of Scotland really want separation then they must vote for it. It is essential that they have set before them, first, in detail and in clarity, the consequences of such action and the alternatives. The policies of the Scottish National Party matter little to its supporters. They are voting for total separation —nothing more and nothing less. Sometimes it is suggested that, because the Conservative Party of Scotland does not support a Scottish Assembly, we are losing out so far as votes are concerned. I suggest that if one goes to socialists in Scotland and asks, "Why do you not vote Conservative?", one will be given a dozen reasons why they do not, but one of them will not be that we are not in favour of a Scottish Assembly.
The debate this evening does not permit a detailed discussion of the proposals of the Scottish Convention. Sufficient to say that I see that as a major step towards separation and the break-up of the United Kingdom. It has another great disadvantage in that it would become a breeding ground for discontent and bickering between Edinburgh and Westminster.
782
However large the block grant to Scotland might be, it would never satisfy the appetite for funding of that potential bureaucratic monster.
As regards tax raising powers of its own, that would make Scotland the most highly taxed part of the United Kingdom. Inevitably that would lead to a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster. It is inconceivable that English Members of Parliament would go along with the idea of a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers and the kind of powers that that would give, and at the same time accept the same number of Scottish Members here participating in affairs which are purely English.
Recently, an interesting series of articles appeared in the Scotsman which asked businessmen what their opinion would be of independence or a Scottish Assembly. In almost every case the answer was that from choice they would have status quo. It is sad, at a time when Scotland has so much to offer and when it has the opportunity of becoming one of the leading participants in the Union, that there should be this distraction creeping in of independence and separation.
I do not believe that the Labour Party itself is wholly dedicated to separation. I accept that, but where it has got things completely wrong is that by going along with an assembly with the powers that it proposes, it is taking the first step on that slippery slope which would lead ultimately to separation. I cannot forget that when I entered Parliament in 1970, the leader of the Labour Party was one of the most anti-devolutionist Members of Parliament at that time. There were in that camp a great many Scottish Labour MPs who shared the same views. I would like to say more but my time is up. Again I thank the noble Lady for giving us the opportunity to talk about Scotland.
7.5 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in addition to congratulating the three excellent maiden speakers we have heard, it would be a pity to allow tonight to pass without a "Happy Birthday" greeting to my noble friend Lady Elliot who very recently entered her 91st year and who is speaking with all the vigour of the girl whom we have known and loved for so long.
We all enjoy the occasional Scottish debate. We are very grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing this one. I certainly echo what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said. Perhaps she will get it started every year.
At all costs on a Scottish occasion let us maintain our sense of proportion and our traditional realism. The Financial Times is from our point of view an outside observer. On 13th December it said that the world recession hit Scotland later and less than the rest of Britain. The only part of Britain to see a fall in long-term unemployment in the six months to last July was Scotland. The number of self-employed people is up 50 per cent. since 1979 after no less than 30 years of no increase at all.
The Observer is another outside English newspaper observing Scotland. It said the other day that there is now a nimbleness and dynamism in the Scottish

783
economy unseen for many years. There are various reasons, but one is the offshore oil and gas industry sending ripples right through the economy. About 100,000 jobs—that is, 5 per cent. of the number of people in work in Scotland—are either directly or indirectly in or related to the offshore industry. Last year more than £4 billion worth of developments were authorised and approved for the North Sea offshore industry as against £2½ billion the year before.
I have an interest to declare. I am a director of the French company ELF Aquitaine which, true to the old Franco-Scottish alliance, is becoming more and more interested in Scotland. In a decade we have provided about a third of all the United Kingdom's natural gas. We have interests in more than a dozen fields offshore for oil and gas, partly in production and partly being explored, to say nothing of the new Piper platform.
But as with coal, so with oil and gas: both are extractive industries and so the quarry becomes harder to get the further you go. There are thus two big anxieties overhanging this industry just now. The first is the oil price at about 17.75 dollars or £10 a barrel. That is not a great reward when North Sea costs are higher than in many other geographically attractive parts of the world. But those costs are counterbalanced, in the judgment of the world oil industry, by a stable political environment. Here I would like to echo what my noble friends Lord Dundonald and Lord Gray of Contin said earlier.
Stability of the political environment is critical to attracting overseas investment. Nothing would discourage heavy long-term investment in the North Sea more than a separatist challenge to the UK sovereign right to issue licences and draw revenue. Yet, amid the illusions of the separatists, it is worth recognising that a separate Scotland could not by international law claim title to anything south of the Forties Field. It would have to forfeit Nelson, Elgin, Franklin and everything to the south.
If the fragmentation syndrome now popular spread from Scotland to Orkney and Shetland, as might well happen, then a separate Scotland must say farewell to all the offshore north of the Pentland Firth. A constitutionally separate Scotland could throw away nearly all the offshore benefit enjoyed today.
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsey and Abingdon: My Lords, I begin by joining with other noble Lords in congratulating the three noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches today.
I am one-quarter Scottish and my wife is three-quarters Scottish. By choice we live in Scotland when I am not working in London. We moved to Ayrshire from the south east of England some 12 to 13 years ago. It was most noticeable then how depressed that part of Scotland was after the previous depression of the mid-seventies. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with that area, it consists mainly of arable farming and golf links on the coastal belt and hill farming inland. That was interspersed with coal mining which was being run down together with the traditional heavy industries.
784
Since then in its place have come new light industries of high technology, such as electrical and computer manufacturing which have gone a long way to solving the serious unemployment problem and contributing to a greatly improved standard of living. So far as concerns the economy of Scotland that must be tied to any future political developments and any further taxation proposals that may arise. I am personally for retaining the status quo so long as politicians from London stop using Scotland as a testing ground for possible legislation that might be introduced into other parts of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the main reason for putting my name down to speak in today's debate. It is to bring your Lordships' attention to British Coal's policy of granting licences to private mining companies to carry out opencast mining in Scotland and elsewhere. There seems to have been a mushrooming of these sites in recent years following the closing down on economic grounds of the old deep underground coal mines. My research reveals that though strict guidelines on working hours and noise levels are laid down by local councils they are in some cases overlooked.
Employment is another matter of interest. The equipment used is so large that one man can operate a piece of machinery which can do the work of 30 men. Those employed on site are not necessarily redundant coal miners. They belong to another union. But that is another story.
In summing up I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister, who knows well the area to which I am referring, whether any serious research has been carried out into the long-term environmental and health effects on the local communities of this type of mining, not to mention the upheaval caused to wildlife and vegetation. Does it contribute in any great way to the economy of Scotland when we seem to be importing cheap subsidised coal from abroad?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, we have had three outstanding maiden speeches. It makes me realise that this is the first time that I have spoken in a Scottish debate. With a name like Selsdon of Croydon I feel something of an interloper, although my family name declares that I have some chill blood within me. I remember once when I was on a train, I went into the loo. There was a sign there saying "Do not pull the chain when the train is standing at a station". Someone had written underneath "Except at Croydon". I must be the Croydon of your Lordships' House and I therefore have a duty to behave rather like a latter day Tony Hancock of East Cheam Cuttings.
There are serious sides to this debate, but in a few short moments it is difficult to deliver a lot of serious information. Therefore I took the liberty earlier this afternoon of conveying a missive from the City of Glasgow to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. More will follow.
I echo in particular the noble Lord, Lord MacFarlane. It was because of his initiatives with Glasgow Action that I suddenly found myself going back to Glasgow, realising that there was a city that

785
was due to restore itself. I found too that I was a Unionist. My grandfather, whose father was Provost of Edinburgh at the turn of the century, thought that "Glasgow was better" and stood as a young man in North Lanark, overthrowing a Labour majority. He lost his seat fairly quickly thereafter but managed to return to Maryhill. I researched it through. I wanted to know what a Unionist was, but I am still not quite sure.
I went back to look at the treaty of union, which was concluded about the time that Queen Anne sent a spy called Daniel Defoe up there to look at Scotland and to see what was going on. He wrote describing Glasgow as the paradise of Scotland and one of the cleanliest and best built cities in Britain. We know that images of Glasgow change but your Lordships probably do not know that a recent quality of life study put Glasgow way above every other city in the United Kingdom in terms of quality of life.
I thought that maybe the gap between Whitehall and Westminster and Scotland had widened so much that I might try to become a form of spy for Scotland down here in Whitehall and Westminster. I find there are some strange things going on. On the Benches opposite, where there is meant to be considerable interest in Scotland and considerable support for Scotland, there are not many people. On these Benches, there are lots of people. In another place, the best Front Bench spokesmen for the party opposite all seem to come from Scotland. The break-up of the Union could be disastrous for the Labour Party. However, the Union will not break up because what we are seeing at the moment is a protest from Scotland.
The important thing about the original Treaty of Union is that it gave a great benefit to Scotland that many of us have forgotten about. It opened up the trade with the English colonies to the Scots, who took rapid advantage of the opportunity. Before long they had stolen the tobacco trade away from Bristol because their ships could get to the colonies quicker. They could get to Maryland, Virginia and even the Carolinas. Then they found that they were competing with their own people downstream at Greenock. So they hired some engineers—Golborne, Smeaton and later Sir Thomas Telford—and said, "Look, this river is so shallow that at low water we can't get the ships up here". They put in 117 piers and then more and before long ships were coming up to Glasgow, which ended up building ships.
Even in 1776, when the War of Independence came along and we lost the tobacco trade to Amsterdam, people said, "There's a new trade". They went out to the West Indies. Over time one found that the strength of the city was the people in that city and not the people outside. We see in my noble friend Lord MacFarlane a Scot who is rebuilding his city, but rebuilding it with considerable difficulties because the resources may well not be there. Unionist though I am, I am not—to quote Scott—one of those "Unionist courtiers, that have bought and sold old Scotland". I
786
would remind your Lordships, and particularly my right honourable friends in another place, at this time of the English proverb:
"He that will England win must first with Scotland begin".
There are now many opportunities that we come across, but Scotland is being penalised and it needs more support. I wrote to my noble friend about the problem of business rates. He will have seen the press reports showing that Scotland has the third highest business rates in the world. Business rates in Scotland are 50 times higher than they are in Berlin.
I sit down happily and pull the plug on Croydon by reminding myself again of these words:
"The Scots give oats to their people; the English to their horses;
The Scots have good people; the English have good horses".
Please will my right honourable friends in another place give more oats to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland?
7.20 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it will not surprise your Lordships that earlier today I was watching Olympic skiing on television. The speech of my noble friend who has just spoken would be given the new "best time." I congratulate the three noble Lords who in their various ways made excellent and memorable maiden speeches. My thanks are due to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving us this marvellous debating opportunity, which has been amply rewarded by the attendance of an enormous number of noble Lords from Scotland.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues will continue to push, to lobby and to fight for Scottish farmers—being one myself, I declare an interest—in Brussels, throughout Europe and all over the world and will do all they can to support our agriculture, food industry, forestry, fishing and sport. My noble friend Lady Elliot and others have drawn attention to the enormous importance of the Scottish rural economy.
Scots everywhere are famous. Indeed, it is said that many a true word is spoken in jest. I regret to say that for better or worse throughout the world we tend to be famous for the way in which we deal with money—our competence and our prudence. I understand that the latest figures show that nine out of the 15 largest corporations in Scotland are in the financial sector employing 10 per cent. of the Scottish workforce and producing 15 per cent. of the identifiable gross domestic product of Scotland. To me those figures are something of an agreeable surprise. They will not be a surprise to my noble friends Lord MacFarlane and Lord Polwarth, and certainly not to my noble friend the Minister. I wonder whether non-Scots outside Scotland believe us to be more canny, more professional and perhaps even more trustworthy, or merely better in the long term at managing savings, pensions and investments.
The first outward sign of the Scottish financial sector is our excellent banks. The Bank of Scotland was founded in 1695. That is also a special date in the family history of my noble friend Lord Kintore. I believe that something concerning the Earl Marshal

787
happened in that year. The Royal Bank of Scotland, in which I declare an interest as a client, looks after me and an enormous part of Scottish industry and agriculture. It was founded in 1727. The Clydesdale and Northern Bank, which alas is no longer represented—I do not know why—in my home town of Kirriemuir, was founded in 1838. A strong, excellent and professional institution is the TSB Scotland which is the fourth major performer among the clearing banks in Scotland. These major institutions control £50 billion of assets.
Another arm of the Scottish financial industry is pre-eminent not just in Scotland and the United Kingdom but, I am happy to say, in Europe. The nine life offices—the enormous companies that look after our pensions and our savings—control funds under management of approximately £60 billion. The population of Scotland is around 5.5 million. Your Lordships' arithmetic will be quicker than mine but that shows the trust that is placed in the financial industry of Scotland by outsiders, let alone Scots. Scottish Widows, the company which we see advertised beautifully, dates from 1815, a great date in British history. The Standard Life Assurance Company is the largest mutual life assurance company throughout Europe. It is based and centred in Scotland.
Until I studied for this debate I had no idea that the Scottish banking and insurance industry had increased the number of its employees from around 18,000 outside Scotland in 1987 to around 30,000 at the end of 1990. Pure Fund Management—investments and savings for us all—was started by a remarkable man and a remarkable family in my home city of Dundee in 1879. The movement goes from strength to strength. Total funds managed in Scotland have risen from £12 billion in 1986 to around £30 billion today. It seems that the financial sector in Scotland must be doing at least one thing right.
I hope that there is no complacency. I read one report which showed that Scottish firms have a little way to go to catch up in this sector. If any noble Lord believes that there is complacency I can use two letters of the alphabet to demonstrate that there is no complacency. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland was founded in 1854. That is why my noble friend Lord Polwarth and I have two letters after our name, and not three, like the other institutions that have sprung up throughout the world. It is admitted that the institute has the best training and standards. The training is professional, tough and flexible. The economy of Scotland is evolving and developing in this apparently unlikely but most successful sector. I hope that my noble friend the Minister and the Government will give it all the support they can.
7.26 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall take the place of my noble friend Lord Dulverton in the debate as I understand that he is not able to speak and, inadvertently, my name was left off the list.
788
We are indeed fortunate with our three maiden speakers. I hope that we shall not have to wait too long before we have the opportunity of listening to them again. The issues raised by the debate are of great importance not just to Scotland but to the United Kingdom as well. I wish to make a short contribution and I must thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving me the opportunity to do so.
As I listened to the issues raised by noble Lords, a real fear hit me that we could, perhaps unconsciously, be projecting a wrong and inaccurate image of Scotland to the world at large. I acknowledge that the Scottish economy, like most economies in the world, is facing up to some real problems. I sense however that we are in danger of exaggerating the negatives and understating the positives. We have heard some remarkable facts and figures. There has been reference to the analysis by the Financial Times in December which indicated that in recent years the Scottish economy has grown faster than that of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. To me it is quite remarkable that Scotland's exports of manufactured goods per head are greater than those of Japan. Perhaps for the cynics among your Lordships I should say that it is not just because of the Scots whisky industry, employing 15,000 people and exporting £1.7 billion of whisky in 1990, an increase of 14 per cent. over the previous year.
What is perhaps far more important is the electronics industry in Scotland, which now employs 46,000 people. Nine out of 10 of Europe's personal computers are made in Scotland. Positive internal investment in Scotland's electronics industry has now been attracted from nearly all of the major international electronics firms. That is a singular achievement.
In seeking the reason for these positive trends, we can draw some conclusions that go beyond Scotland and might well be applied universally to the whole of the United Kingdom economy. Scotland has only succeeded so well in the electronics sector because of a commitment to flexibility on the part of the workforce and because of a respect for, and dedication to, training and retraining in the broadest sense.
When I was fortunate enough to contribute to your Lordships' debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, following the publication of the Select Committee's report on Innovation in Manufacturing Industry, I drew attention to the respect with which both the education process and the engineering profession are held north of the Border. That has to be contrasted with the less satisfactory position in the United Kingdom as a whole.
The report concluded that skill shortages are a problem at all levels in manufacturing industry. The more positive attitude, endemic in the whole of society in Scotland, to education, retraining and the engineering profession should be emphasised and re-emphasised and used as a positive selling point to encourage an even higher level of internal investment in the Scottish economy.
In the same debate, I spoke of that legendary fellow, the Scottish engineer, one of our nation's more positive exports. The brain drain of Scottish enterprise

789
has certainly enriched the global environment. I understand that there are over 25 million people of Scots descent in the United States alone. We should give more thought to how we might make Scotland itself an environment and a society where more of the skilled workforce are keen to stay.
A good deal has already been done in that direction. Those of your Lordships who, like me and my noble friend Lord MacFarlane, who spoke earlier, have been fortunate enough to visit Glasgow, cannot have failed to notice the transformation of that great city in recent years. It now offers its inhabitants an environment that many of us in London envy together with a rich variety of cultural opportunities that would be hard to match anywhere in the world. Such changes, which should be fostered and encouraged, must be positive and must encourage a reverse of the Scottish brain drain.
But, in addition, I hope that such changes will also engender a more positive attitude towards Scotland from those on the outside looking in. A good start has already been made in that direction. As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale said, since "Locate in Scotland" was established in 1981, £4,200 million of inward investment from abroad has been made in Scotland and the figures for last year show that the process is accelerating.
All of that is positive. But my real point is this: a message will go out from the House today to the whole of the United Kingdom, to Europe and to the world. It will help to project Scotland, a land of rich cultural heritage, with a well-educated and well-motivated workforce and an ability to operate in the forefront of many new and emerging technologies. I suggest that that approach is the right way forward to attract skills and investment, and to enhance the dignity of a country which is beloved and an essential part of our great union.
7.33 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to join other speakers in expressing my thanks to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for introducing the debate. It is not often that extra time is awarded on a Wednesday. That certainly reflects the keen response of your Lordships to the subject before us. We have also heard today three very fine maiden speeches. I warmly congratulate my noble friends Lord Dundonald, Lord Kintore and Lord MacFarlane. All three speeches were well informed and well delivered. It is to be hoped that my noble friends will manage to come here very often to speak.
My noble friend Lord Gray in particular and other speakers pointed to the measure of success already in Scotland and how, not least, this has been brought about through policies of reduced taxation and lower inflation. As we have heard, inward investment has accrued to £4.2 billion and a continuing pattern of growth has spread to many parts of the economy. More predictably affected are the oil and gas industries. Less predictable perhaps are the achievements that we find in the service sector, providing 1.34 million jobs, in electronics, which employs 11.5 per
790
cent. of the total in Scottish manufacturing, and with shipbuilding, which in recent years has often been consigned to the deep by economists and popular forecast but which is now happily once more buoyant and afloat.
Another traditional endeavour always supported in your Lordships' House in a moderate and patriotic way is the whisky industry. That was clearly demonstrated by a record level of exports of £1.7 billion in 1990. It is now fully recovered from its previous hangover and is currently in excellent spirits.
Therefore, the questions we now ask are how to conserve and improve upon all those results, which new directions should we also take and how far can those aims be assisted and directed by government. Here I should like briefly to mention two aspects. The first is the need to take more steps to strengthen our entrepreneurial base in Scotland; and the second, in order better to facilitate trade with Europe and elsewhere, there is the case for beginning straightaway a proper programme of investment into those parts of the infrastructure concerned.
On the first point, one problem of which we are all aware is that, compared with the South East, Scotland has a far weaker entrepreneurial base. Mergers and company takeovers move headquarters, R&D and support services to the South, while multinationals take them overseas. However, without having to interfere and meddle with commercial decisions, clearly there are a number of ways in which government can help. Privatisation is an obvious area and that of Scottish Electricity a particular example where companies and their headquarters can be located in Scotland.
Nor, clearly, is every single proposed takeover desirable. In fact, although hardly ever used, there is an enabling provision of protection in the Act concerning monopolies and mergers. I wonder whether my noble friend agrees that that provision should be employed rather more than it is. Can he also say what plans there are to help increase the number of Scottish-based companies through further measures of privatisation or through some other means?
A direct lead which the Government can give is with the Civil Service. Some civil servants have to be in London. Most, however, do not. If recruitment down here with ever-rising wages proves difficult, then there is surely a solution by relocating the job to a part of the country where higher salaries are not needed. In East Kilbride we already have the ODA and elsewhere there are a few other minor examples. However, there is no good reason why even more of the DSS could not be moved to the North of England or the Department of Energy to Aberdeen. Dispersal along those lines would encourage the private sector to look beyond the South East and north of Watford for its development, investment and centres.
A connected matter is infrastructure and what government can and should be doing now to help facilitate Scottish trade over the years ahead. My noble friend Lord Selkirk emphasised the importance of roads. There is a strong case for building a new motorway, possibly financed on the toll principle, extending the whole way down the east coast of

791
Scotland and England from Edinburgh to the Channel. To date it seems that plans to upgrade what is there address only the existing level of use on certain sections of road. That premise is rather like saying that we should not have opened the Suez Canal because previously there may not have been much traffic there except for a few camels.
Other aspects of long-term planning, so far apparently lacking, concern Hunterston and Scottish ports in general. Will my noble friend concur that, while the running of those ports should be left to private enterprise, it is the job of government to help provide co-ordination between Scottish ports and a proper strategy for trade, encompassing many opportunities—whether it be the import of cheap coal from South Africa and Australia to Hunterston or traffic of various kinds between Scottish ports and western and eastern Europe?
Certainly the current level of progress in Scotland may cause us to take heart. We must continue with fiscal and monetary policies which give maximum encouragement to inward investment, business and industry. However, in the interests of competitive trade a far-sighted strategy of investment is now needed, as is also for a sounder more confident economy, a far stronger Scottish entrepreneurial base.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, the Scottish Council Development and Industry, to which other noble Lords have referred, flourished and did its best work about 25 to 30 years ago. It is remarkable to remember that all that it did was done without a penny of public expenditure. It was all done on funds raised voluntarily. It attracted industry. It went out to America, hurried around and persuaded industry to come to Scotland. It did many things. Thirty years ago we had the Toothill Report. Not many people remember it now. It was produced by the Scottish Council and that remarkable man, Sir John Toothill.
The report suggested a number of policies that should be carried out. Nearly all of them were taken up by subsequently created government bodies. They now have a great deal of money and they are going ahead with them. The Scottish Council was the originator of them all. We shall see a result although it may take a long time.
In those days the unemployment rate in Scotland was 50 per cent. higher than that of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is now practically down to the average level for Britain even at a time of increased unemployment. Scotland has not been so greatly affected because we have built a strong Scottish economy and we are holding our own. Yarrow has an order for three frigates. Kvaerner Govan has won an order for an advanced ship in the face of worldwide competition, including competition from the Far East. Weirs of Cathcart is flourishing. It is constructing pumps, valves and all manner of things needed by industry. ICI is flourishing in Scotland. General Accident Insurance has more business in the United States than it has in Great Britain. The Dawson Group in the Borders (Pringle and Braemar, for example) is flourishing. Meanwhile, Scottish and
792
Newcastle Breweries is slaking the thirst of workers all over Scotland and England. I could give many more examples. The electronic industry, which is made up of small companies, has done well. There is the financial industry made up of the banks and insurance companies to which my noble friend Lord Lyell referred.
All those companies are linked closely to the British economy. They are part of it. If there is devolution—Heaven help us if there is independence—what will those companies do? I sense a feeling of deep unease among the people running those companies about what will happen if Scotland has its own tax system. What will happen to those companies which are minded to seek a base in Britain? We have fought hard and persuaded a great many of them to come to Scotland. They might think twice in the future about deciding to come to Scotland.
We should say to our fellow Scots, "Think hard about what you are doing before you vote. Are you jeopardising your future jobs and all the work done by the Scottish Council and others to make Scotland what it is today?"
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving us this opportunity to speak on Scotland which, being our ain country, is very dear to our hearts. I should like to congratulate my noble friends Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden and Lord Dundonald and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, on their winning treble of maiden speeches. My noble friend Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden was, like Glasgow, miles better. The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, gave us a speech masterly in its grasp of Highland cattle. My noble friend Lord Dundonald, in his brilliant and amusing speech, made us all feel that we should learn Japanese at once.
With so many speakers, I should like to make just the briefest of contributions. While I was writing this, I was reading through some old letters of an ancestor of mine, Adam Drummond, who was a Member of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh 300 years ago. In those days, the Scottish economy was very different from what it is now, with a faster growth than the growth of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. Now, our exports of manufactured goods, electronics and whisky have all gone up. (90 per cent. of the computers sold in Europe are made in Scotland.) Then, our exports were oatmeal and salted fish.
"If we could onlie have ane union of parliaments, and join the Scottish economy to that of England, such misery and corruption as I now see every day in Edinburgh would not then afflict us",
wrote my ancestor home to his wife. If only he could see now how that looked-for union of Parliaments has come about, and with it the prosperity which we now have in Scotland, how he would rejoice. How amazed and delighted too he would be to find a whole debate on the Scottish economy going on in your Lordships' House in the Palace of Westminster. How amazed that we no longer had a secondary currency of pounds Scots which were worth very much less than the pound sterling.

793
There is much talk on television and in the newspapers today of how a separate Scotland would benefit the Scots. It might well benefit the English—there would be a lot less time taken up here at Westminster with Scottish business for one thing. But it would not be any good for Scotland. We should only have to pay twice as much in tax for every man, woman and child as we do already. We should probably, as we did in the 18th century and at other times, squabble among ourselves a great deal more, without the common cry of England to unite us. Our new found prosperity would drop, and I fear that my revered ancestor would certainly be turning in his grave.
7.47 p.m.
The Marquess of Huntly: My Lords, I join all other Peers in congratulating the three maiden speakers we have had the privilege of hearing tonight. It was a pleasure to hear them and I hope that we shall hear many more speeches from them.
I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the importance of the forestry industry in Scotland with particular reference to the Grampian region. Most regional councils are now preparing forestry strategies. They have been encouraged to do so by a circular from the Scottish Office. The circular outlines current government forestry policy and clarifies the relationship of indicative forestry policies to structure plans. The consultative draft report from the Grampian region has now been published following consultation with numerous official bodies, local interest groups and individuals.
I expect that it will be impossible to satisfy all parties, which themselves may differ fundamentally on an appropriate strategy for the future. There is, however, a great deal to be commended in what has been drafted by the authors of the Grampian Indicative Forestry Strategy, even though there remain fundamental misgivings among farmers and landowners as to whether adequate consideration is being given to the position of those who fall within restrictive zoning. I shall come back to that in a moment.
Forestry is vital to the Scottish economy as a whole, covering 12 per cent. of our land area. It is even more significant in the Grampian region where the figure rises to 17 per cent. It is still rising, which is why it is so important to secure sound and positive ground rules actively to encourage the growth of the industry. To fail to do so would harness landowners to unworkable and restrictive guidelines and overlook, on account of selective arguments, the overriding economic imperative.
There is already an impressive record in the north east. The forestry industry has made a significant investment in the Grampian region. Roughly 150,000 hectares of the region are either under forest and woodland or with permission to plant. This high quality timber resource has also attracted significant downstream processing capacity to the area. The new sawmill at Aboyne, for example, is one of the most technologically advanced in Europe and between
794
purchases of wood and services it puts over £4 million a year into the local economy of Grampian region. The mill is currently investing a further £million in the latest kilning technology which will enable it to compete in UK markets against the top grade imported timber from Canada. Timber production within Grampian is forecast to increase by about 60 per cent. over the next 20 years, offering scope for more processing expansion and related employment.
With the need for a reduction in agricultural surpluses under reforms of the CAP, forestry clearly has much to contribute to the Grampian economy, both as an alternative land use and as a major Scottish manufacturing industry. Unlike many other types of industry, it has genuine potential for growth.
If the potential is to be realised, however, investment must be positively encouraged by both national and regional policies. With the opening up of Europe in 1992–93 and with the rest of the world to invest in, the Government must do more to encourage rather than constrain investment in our rural economy. It is now subjected to too much conservation theory and perhaps too little genuine experience of land use production practice.
It is the threat from this conservation theory that requires clarification for those farmers and landowners who are zoned in the draft strategy document as being "sensitive"; that is to say, those holding land designated as being too sensitive to permit the establishment of forestry. May I illustrate an obvious example? As your Lordships know, there is a new initiative known as the farm woodland premium scheme, which was mentioned briefly by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in her opening remarks. From the beginning of April it replaces the farm woodland scheme. The new scheme has a better land supplement, higher planting grant and higher annual payment. Under it timber can be considered as a commercial crop worthy of field scale operation rather than merely landscaping or shelter belt cover, as would have applied with previous schemes. The decision to plant on a significant scale would thereby have major consequences for future profits, cash-flow and viability for the farm for years to come.
The issue that has to be resolved is how farmers in these circumstances would be treated. What financial compensation would be forthcoming for those farmers who are prevented by the restrictions contained in the strategy document from benefiting from this or any other similar scheme? On a different scale but of equal importance to the applicant would be the restriction on large-scale plantations in the upland areas of, for example, West Aberdeenshire, where blanket constraints are proposed.
If compensation is to be forthcoming, who would administer it? Would the Scottish Tourist Board or the district tourist board be appropriate, or should some other altogether separate department of government take responsibility? The weight of scholarship being assigned to this subject from many standpoints is considerable. I do not believe that we should be concerned that hasty and ill-considered solutions will be pressed upon us.

795
In raising the subject this evening, I simply ask your Lordships to acknowledge two points. The first is that compensation ought to be paid to individuals in the event that they are disprivileged as a direct result of the strategy adopted in their areas.
The second is this. The need to harmonise forestry with other land interests such as farming and nature conservation is fully acknowledged. It is accepted that appropriate controls and restrictions in all aspects of land management are essential. However, every encouragement should be given by government and planners at all tiers of responsibility to promote the continued growth of the forestry industry throughout rural Scotland. We must be alert. The ground rules for the future are being laid now and I urge the Government to take these matters into consideration when taking the decisions that will affect so many of US.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak, but had the parliamentary programme not been considerably disrupted today I should not have been able to be present. I wish to add my congratulations to the maiden speakers and also to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on putting down the debate. It has been excellent, as Scottish debates usually are, and I am told that we are well to time.
One or two interesting points were made by my noble friends, particularly my noble friend Lord Palmer who referred to tourism. I should draw attention to the fact that many restrictions which may not be obvious are being put on tourism. For example, the preparation of food comes under stringent regulations which I believe emanate largely from the European Community. I understand that it is illegal to have any wooden equipment in the kitchen; one cannot use a wooden chopping board or, which is worse, a wooden spoon. These problems are causing difficulties in the tourist industry, and furthermore the taxation rating for bed-and-breakfast accommodation has recently been greatly increased.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned road improvement. Having been chairman of the Inverness roads committee of the county council for several years, I well remember that when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was Secretary of State we achieved substantial improvements. I emphasise even more what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, that road improvements are vital. I plead with the Government to give more money to Scottish, particularly Highland, roads.
The other point I wish to make is that once again with forestry and agriculture we are being strangled by health and safety regulations. A young forester cannot be trained when he leaves school because he is not allowed to use any mechanical instrument until he reaches a certain age, which is far older than necessary. For example, he cannot use a power saw and it is difficult to train young foresters. Furthermore, it puts farming and agriculture at a disadvantage compared with our European neighbours because most other countries do not apply the
796
regulations, even if they have them. I remember visiting a French farm and seeing the hay-making equipment. It was simple compared with ours. Although safety regulations may be necessary, they should apply throughout the European Community so that there is a level playing field.
Then we have trouble with people who, for one reason or another, call themselves conservationists. They seem to forget that the countryside which so many tourists and others come to see in the Highlands has been created by the people who are looking after the ground now. Yet we have restrictions. We are not allowed to plant or cut down certain things; we are not allowed to do this or that.
The amount of paper work one has in an estate office now is unbelievable. It is mostly bureaucratic and presumably these people have to be paid for in one way or another. They may be regional council officials or government officials, but more and more people interfere with what we are trying to do and what I believe we have done well for many years. The Government have promised to do their level best for the farmers in the GATT negotiations. Those negotiations are like the sword of Damocles hanging over us. I wish our negotiators the best in their efforts.
8 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I, too, wish to thank the mover of this Motion and congratulate the maiden speakers. This is not a constitutional debate, but I would not put much money against the proposition that the constitution of Scotland will be altered soon after the next election. It is important that we should treat that matter sensibly. Some of the things that have been said about it seem to me to be fairly senseless.
If Scotland should by any chance become independent—I hope that will not happen—how it will fare depends on how the Scots behave. Switzerland is a successful independent country. Russia, which is a large country, was not at all successful as an independent country. I am against independence for Scotland, but I believe some constitutional change may well be coming and it will certainly be needed.
Whether taxation goes up or down depends on the Scots. On the matter of whether the economy will fare well or badly, I cannot say that the management of the British economy is doing so brilliantly well after the past 10 years. Some change might be welcome. When one considers how oil has poured wealth into this country, I am a little surprised at the enthusiasm for the status quo.
The one thing that can be said about the economic position is that since the First World War Scotland has suffered the continual beheading of its industries and the loss of control over its major industries. That not only affects those industries, it also affects the services in Scotland which lose employees. It also affects the whole community because the able people who would normally remain in Scotland drift south and with that drift something valuable is taken out of the community.

797
It is desirable that foreign investment should be made in Scotland as it provides valuable employment. However, that does not compensate for the drift to the south of top people which has continued since the First World War. That loss of able people has proved a great handicap to Scottish life as well as to its industry. If there were some centre of power in Scotland that situation might well be reversed and there might well be an upsurge of new talent in Scotland, both in politics and in industry. I very much doubt, for instance, whether the works at Barrhead would have been closed had the management of Shanks remained in Scotland.
I wish briefly to discuss freight and transport. The coming of the Channel Tunnel may be either a good or a bad thing for Scotland. The outcome of that venture depends largely on the approaches to it. A speaker on the other side of the Chamber has rightly said that it is vital to have a trunk road to the south of England and to ensure that our communications from the Scottish ports across the sea and our direct air communications to the Continent and across the Atlantic are greatly improved.
I also wish to mention fishing. The noble Lady who opened this debate dealt eloquently with the common fisheries policy. A great change is coming over the industry. Enormous capital is now required to enter the industry and one needs to travel great distances to fish. Stromness in Orkney is not a well known fishing port but recently some young men there acquired a new boat. It cost millions of pounds and it is equipped to travel to the Atlantic. Inshore fishing is changing out of all recognition.
As regards agriculture, there is a feeling abroad that it has been feather-bedded. Small farmers at any rate have not been feather-bedded. Small farmers in northern Scotland have suffered greatly from the squeeze between rising costs and falling prices. That situation will continue whatever happens in Scottish politics. However, I am optimistic about Scotland. Whatever happens, I believe new talent is available and it will come to the fore. We have no particular reason to complain about our treatment. However, we might do much better with a different constitution. I much regret the way oil revenues have been handled. Oil has been an enormous benefit, but its revenues have been largely squandered when they could have been distributed much more widely throughout Scotland. Alternatively, they could have been used to endow long-term institutions such as universities. Whether we have one form of devolution or another form of unionism, I believe that if Scotland can mobilise the talent that now exists there it has nothing to fear in the future.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as most other speakers have done, I should first of all thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, for giving us an opportunity to debate the economic situation in Scotland. I do not intend to discuss the matter of an assembly or independence tonight. I
798
should be quite happy to do so but the subject we are discussing tonight is wide and I cannot deal with the matter of independence quickly.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, suggested that perhaps this debate could take place every year. I noticed that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, showed a certain interest in the suggestion. That is a welcome suggestion but in view of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said earlier today on the business statement, I do not believe that such a debate should take place on a Friday.
I congratulate those who have made their maiden speeches today. The speakers list is rather oversubscribed and therefore it may not be possible for me to say quite as much as I would like in congratulating the maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden, has much the same attitude to the City of Glasgow as I have. There is no doubt that wonders have been performed there in the past few years.
I am not attempting to pour cold water on the debate. However, the noble Lord, Lord MacFarlane, will know as well as anyone here today that, while a great many things have been achieved, Springburn has 17 per cent. unemployment and my former constituency of Maryhill has 17.5 per cent. unemployment. I give those statistics to bring a touch of reality to the debate.
The noble Earl, Lord Kintore, made an amusing reference to pedigree cattle. He referred to the date of 1707. That date seems to be mentioned nowadays almost as often as people in Glasgow mention the date 1690. The noble Earl also referred to the frustration he has experienced when dealing with Ministers. I speak for Members on both sides of the House, with the exception of those on the Front Bench, when I say "Join the club". We have all felt frustration when dealing with Ministers. However, perhaps that will not be the case with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I shall be generous and not admit to frustration in his case.
Tourism is of course important. However, it can clash with the ideas of some people who want to preserve everything as it is in Scotland. That clash has been observed in previous debates. However, the mind boggles at the idea of Japanese golfers coming to Scotland en masse. They would be welcome but I wonder how they will get on with some of the east coast caddies I have come across.
I have never believed that all maiden speeches must be non-controversial. They should of course be non-abrasive. However, some subjects such as the one we are now discussing demand that the speaker expresses his point of view. Today the maiden speakers expressed their own points of view. They gave a refreshing angle on certain subjects. But, alas, some of the other contributions to the debate made me wonder whether I go home at weekends to the same Scotland as other noble Lords. I have already mentioned the unemployment in Maryhill and in Springburn. Serious endemic unemployment affects many areas in Scotland.
I am a townee and I love walking around cities. At weekends in Glasgow and the west of Scotland I see rows of vacant shops, emptying shopping malls and an

799
ever-increasing number of estate agents' notice boards, intimating that some family has fallen victim to the recession and has been unable to keep up the mortgage payments. The human tragedy and irrational feeling of failure which lie behind each notice board is a condemnation of the type of society we have experienced over the past decade. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, that we have not been very clever in the way we have handled matters in the past 10 years, particularly with regard to the boon of North Sea oil and the huge receipts from privatisation.
The arguments we have heard today, and will I am sure hear during the next few weeks on the hustings, will be exposed by history, which will lament the lost opportunities in Scotland and the United Kingdom because of the almost Messianic belief in a one club solution to all our problems. The end result of that dreadful distortion of Adam Smith was put with great clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Laing of Dunphail, in an excellent speech in this House on 22nd January this year, which is reported at col. 885 of Hansard. The noble Lord suggested that institutional shareholders buy and sell blips on an electronic screen and in our present financial and social climate are esteemed highly for so doing—so long as they happen to pick the right ephemeral choice of blips and end up with a quick profit.
Some noble Lords have quite naturally quoted figures to support their arguments. I have a plethora of figures and facts with me, but one of the most telling reports that I have seen is that of the Scottish Council Development and Industry of January 1992 which says that turnover at Price Waterhouse and KPMG Peat Marwick leapt by 25 per cent. and 21 per cent. respectively. Extra insolvency work was the factor which caused that increase.
The Fraser of Allander/Scottish chambers business survey of 22nd January 1992 said that:
"Business confidence has fallen back in all sectors. Demand remains stagnant or continues to contract across all major sectors. Investment continues to contract. Though demand is expected to improve in the first quarter in 1992 in manufacturing and wholesaling third quarter expectations were generally not realised in the fourth quarter".
I have no wish to be a prophet of doom. Too many of my friends and acquaintances have suffered under this Government for me to wish to make any cheap debating points about the loss of jobs, careers and houses which many people have suffered. They have strived to own their own homes and in many cases have had to give them up. Their children do not have the same opportunities for a good career with a job and a house. I am striving to show the cruelty of the false optimism generated by the government machine. That optimism is false.
I am sure that the Minister will know of the speech of my honourable friend Gordon Brown in another place on 6th February at col. 495 of Hansard for another place. I am sure that the noble Lord will have read that report, and perhaps it will have been taken to pieces. One of the points which Mr. Brown brought out was that Saatchi and Saatchi, for example, spread good news about the economy on its advertising hoardings but then quietly tells its shareholders:
800
"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 report goes on to say that the first months of the financial year have not indicated any grounds for optimism.
A headline in the Daily Express in November stated:
"At last we have lift off. Economy up".
However, the chairman's report to his shareholders at the AGM said:
"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,Sun—and I think that that must be the UK Sun rather than the Scottish Sun, which has taken a different line in the last few weeks—said: "It's looking good", "Britain on the way" and, "We're OK in the UK". It also said:
"If that's depression let's have more of it".
However, again, the report to shareholders in November said:
"Economic conditions as they affect the media are not expected to improve during the next year".
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was much more open and honest. 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".
I agree with that sentiment. But the Secretary of State was not talking to the Express, the Sun or Saatchi and Saatchi. He was talking to representatives of the technical journal, The Engineer, who are not likely to be as easily taken in as others because they are at the sharp end of industry.
I am happy to discuss what we as a party would do and what we shall be doing in a few weeks time. First, we would be honest about the economy; we would not promise candy floss. We would tackle the real problems. We would give new powers to Scottish Enterprise, establish a new Scottish education and training minister, introduce a Scottish work experience scheme to reduce unemployment and we would establish a Scottish technology trust and a Scottish innovation centre. We believe that those measures, with the enthusiasm of a new Labour Government, could give enough impetus to the Scottish economy to make it unrecognisable 10 years from now.
8.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for giving us this opportunity to discuss the Scottish economy. I should also like to congratulate the three maiden speakers, who all spoke with the benefit of personal experience and with the depth of feeling which that experience brings.
I believe that the Scottish economy is in good heart. Certainly, like the wider UK economy, it has been feeling the effects of recession, but it has a number of unique advantages, some of which have been referred to in the debate. I believe that the greatest resource of all is the quality and skill of the Scottish labour force which has shown itself adaptable to changing needs and conditions. For, as we are all aware, the Scottish

801
economy has been in transition. For long it was dependent on the heavy manufacturing industries—coal, steel, shipbuilding, heavy engineering—industries which made Scottish skills and craftsmanship known throughout the world. It has given none of us pleasure to see those industries go into decline. However, we have had to acknowledge the realities. The decline of heavy manufacturing industry and the growth of services are a feature of most modern economies. What distinguishes Scotland from some other countries is the unusual degree of dependence we have had on heavy industries. That has undoubtedly made the process of transition more difficult. In some areas—and of course Lanarkshire is very much in our minds—that process has admittedly been painful.
However, we can all take pride in the determination with which the challenge has been faced. The work of diversifying the Scottish economy has already brought results. One has only to think of the large concentration of high technology industries in central Scotland—what has come to be known as Silicon Glen —and the immense benefits those have brought to the economy. Certainly those industries too have been feeling the effects of the recession, but there is nothing to suggest that the flow of high technology industry and other inward investment into Scotland is anywhere near an end. Indeed, there have been continued inward investment successes over the past weeks and months. There is every evidence that internationally mobile companies are continuing to see Scotland as an important base not only for their United Kingdom but also their European operations. I am confident that we will see yet more inward investment particularly as the world economy starts to recover.
I know that the Scottish economy needs more than inward investment. It needs encouragement and strengthening of its industrial base. The Government have given priority to that. Through various supply side measures—deregulation, tax reductions and trade union reforms—we have sought to give Scottish industry the incentives it needs. We have been the first government to tackle the thorny problem of business rates, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. We have a commitment to continue that. All of those measures are aimed at improving the competitiveness of Scottish industry.
My noble friend Lord MacFarlane in an excellent maiden speech showed that he was an able advocate of the city of my birth, Glasgow. It is a city of which I know the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, also has great knowledge. One outstanding feature of my noble friend's maiden speech was the time he spent talking about private sector initiatives in Glasgow, not the one-club solutions spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, but a partnership between public investment and private sector money and initiative, bringing people together so they can succeed. That is one of the secrets of the success of Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies in Glasgow and throughout Scotland.
802
I turn to some of the other points raised in the debate. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, made a strong case for investment incentives for industry in the Budget. As she will appreciate, the Chancellor has been the recipient of a great deal of advice over the past few weeks. Indeed, I believe the advice the noble Lady offered is not very different from what some sectors of industry have been putting forward. I cannot anticipate what will be in the Budget, but I can give the noble Lady an assurance that the Government remain firmly committed to the need to rid industry of unnecessary burdens, financial and otherwise, so allowing it the freedom it needs to prosper and be competitive. Our record on that score speaks for itself.
The noble Lady and many other noble Lords stressed the importance to Scotland of the three basic rural industries: agriculture, fishing and forestry. As to agriculture, the noble Lady referred to the "unhelpful" changes being proposed to the common agricultural policy. If I may say so, that was a fine understatement. The Commission's proposals threaten to disadvantage agriculture in the United Kingdom and in several respects the impact on Scotland would be more damaging than elsewhere. In particular, the proposals for restricting entitlement to premia for sheep, beef and dairy cattle would apply disproportionately. We have made clear our opposition to the discriminatory features of the proposals. We have been at pains to explain to the Commission and our partners the damage the proposals would bring about in Scotland. We shall stand firm, not just because the proposals discriminate against our farmers but because they would undermine the ability of the more efficient farms in Europe to compete in a wider international market place.
We will not agree to changes in the CAP which impose unreasonable burdens upon our farmers. But we must distinguish between the actual problems facing farmers and what are as yet only threats. If we are to concern ourselves with threats let us also remember that there are opportunities. A good illustration is the SNFU's positive initiatives to develop quality control systems for livestock and now arable farms. I am glad that we have been able to offer some government support to their efforts and I understand that various programmes are making progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Kintore, in his maiden speech, spoke about BSE and current restrictions on the export of live pedigree cattle from the United Kingdom. There is no evidence of lateral transmission of BSE. The latest research findings suggest that even if lateral transmission does occur it is unlikely to be a major feature of the disease, pointing to a rapid decline in the number of confirmed BSE cases within the next years. Once it is clear that the expected decrease is being realised a strong case can be mounted for relaxing the ban on the export of breeding stock. We are in the hands of the European Commission and the hard diplomatic work by British Ministers will have to be continued before we can get re-entry into European markets.
I am very much aware of the problems facing the Scottish fishing industry, raised by the noble Lady,

803
Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond. While the tie-up measures introduced in 1991 did not prove popular they were required to avoid the possible collapse of the stock. The Government worked very hard to avoid the worst elements of the Commission's original proposals. Our successes can be seen in the much greater degree of flexibility available to our fishermen in this year's regime. I recognise that the gear options proposed for this year will not be a suitable alternative for all Scottish fishermen but they will certainly offer greater flexibility than would otherwise have been the case.
I noted the views of the noble Lady on decomissioning. The Government are giving careful consideration to the development of conservation measures designed to reduce effective fishing effort. We have said that we are prepared to consider decommissioning as part of a wider conservation package. The SFF and the NFFO have put proposals to us which we are looking at carefully and seriously.
The noble Lady referred to forestry and the importance of the timber-processing industry. As she will be aware, there has been over £1 billion worth of investment in the industry since 1984 and a substantial part of that has come to Scotland. We now have a processing industry which can compete on quality and technological innovation with the best in the world. As the noble Lady said, production has increased and with it market share. Even so, the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Huntly—who spoke with great knowledge of the situation in Grampian and made a very thoughtful speech—expressed concerns about new planting by the private sector.
It was inevitable, I believe, that there would be some reduction in the rate of growth of the industry as a number of influences came to bear. There was a bulge in planting in the mid to late-1980s on the back of a buoyant economy and a rather generous tax regime. Since 1988 there has been a growing awareness that planting must be sensitive to the landscape and environment, and investors are taking more time to plan their planting. They are adjusting to the new financial regime and economic circumstances. I have every expectation that they will soon seize new opportunities. In the long term this temporary holding back will have no practical effect as forest managers use their skills and exploit the flexibility of the tree resource. I shall bear in mind the interesting suggestions of the noble Lady for further action. As she knows, forestry Ministers maintain close links with the industry. We are confident of the continuing prosperity of that industry and the communities it serves.
The noble Lady and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to the whisky industry and emphasised its importance to the Scottish economy. I make it clear that neither the industry nor the Government is opposed in principle to the harmonisation of duty rates on alcoholic drinks. The current position is that the Community is preparing a report covering possible distortions in the market for alcoholic drinks. It will be only after receipt of that report that any decision will be taken on the minimum rate of spirits duty to be applied within the Community.
804
The noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale spoke about the prospects for North Sea oil. It is right that we should acknowledge the vital contribution of that industry to the Scottish economy. In less than 30 years the offshore sector has grown from nothing to become one of our most important industries. Government revenues exceeded £70 billion to March 1991. While we can no longer expect income levels to match those of the mid-1980s when oil prices were so high, the industry continues to be a major contributor to the economy. Last year's oil trade surplus is not expected to match the £1.5 billion of 1990. However, we can look forward to increases in 1992 reflecting higher production levels and a consequent rise in exports.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale was right to mention the problems of oil and the independence movement. It has never been obvious to me that we should set such faith in a commodity which will not last for ever and whose price fluctuates so much. One of the benefits of the offshore industry has been the greater attention it has focused on the need for infrastructure. The Government are committed to maintaining and improving transport systems both within Scotland and from Scotland to the rest of Europe. Investment in railways has been at unprecedented levels since 1979. Much of this has been directly beneficial to the railway network in Scotland. We have seen investment of over £125 million in new rolling stock and £450 million in electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and London.
Investment in roads, too, has been a priority. I can point out to my noble friend Lord Burton that current spending on roads is the highest ever. This is allowing us to improve much of the network more quickly and to build on recent successes such as the quick start to the upgrading of the A.74 to motorway standard. When completed the upgraded A.74 will mark a major improvement in Scotland's road links with the South. It will significantly assist Scottish industry to remain competitive in the major markets south of the Border and in Europe.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Dundonald in his first class maiden speech, spoke on tourism. I know that my noble friend Lord Dundonald comes from an area of great tourism potential. His ideas on golf will attract a great deal of interest, not least in the Scottish Tourist Board, which I hope will take up some of his suggestions.
As all noble Lords who spoke on that subject pointed out, the industry is a substantial contributor to the Scottish economy. The Scottish Tourist Board estimate that visitors to Scotland spent over £1.6 billion last year alone. If spending by daytrippers is added, the value of tourism to Scotland's economy in 1991 was over £2.5 billion.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, mentioned unemployment. Our commitment to the tourist industry is clear. Since 1979 the financial provision of the Scottish Tourist Board has increased by 27 per cent. in real terms. I have recently been able to announce a further increase in funding for 1992–93.

805
This latest increase of almost £1 million will be spent mainly on increased support to area tourist boards. They are an essential element in the promotion and development of tourism at the local level. The Scottish Tourist Board will also be able to target more effectively the lucrative conference market, which at present is worth £300 million to the Scottish economy. The noble Earl had some interesting ideas about the administration of tourism in Scotland at national and local level; this I have taken on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was also right when he mentioned some of the problems that tourism faces over the environment. He will be delighted to know that at the end of this month I shall be announcing the conclusions of a report on tourism and the environment.
My noble friend Lord Burton spoke about hygiene regulations in the tourism industry and wooden chopping boards. It is important that regulations on hygiene do not create disincentives for people. On the other hand, the consumers must have faith in the quality of the food that they receive, and that is the intention behind these regulations.
No debate would be complete without mentioning the constitutional position in Scotland. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke at some length but would not be drawn on the subject. I am sorry about that. However, other noble Lords have considered the options; namely, my noble friends Lord Selkirk, Lord Gray of Contin and Lord Dundonald. The noble Lord is quite right. There should be a clear debate on this subject backed up by facts and logic.
This Government believe that all parts of the United Kingdom have benefited from the Union. The Union has served the interests of Scotland well over 300 years. We have shared commercial and industrial expansion, as was explained so ably by my noble friend Lord Selsdon. We created an empire together. We stood side by side to protect the United Kingdom and the rest of the world from the tyranny of nazism. My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood demonstrated very well the importance that Scotland and Scotsmen have played in the governance of the United Kingdom. Yet out of political expediency the Labour Party has brought forward proposals for a tax-raising Scottish parliament, creating not only the conditions for the eventual disintegration of the Union but also imposing a heavy economic cost on the people of Scotland. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin for his speech, which I think is one of the finest speeches that I have heard him make in this House. It was not so much a defence of the Union but a glorification of it. That is very important when so many wish to denigrate the benefits of the Union.
A Scottish parliament established by the Labour Party would have the power to increase the basic rate of income tax by about 3p in the pound. The right honourable John Smith, the Shadow Chancellor, confirmed that in a speech he made on 10th January 1992. That increase in taxation, along with Labour's proposals to raise the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent., to abolish the ceiling on national insurance
806
contributions, to impose a 9 per cent. tax on income from savings, to increase inheritance tax and reintroduce capital transfer tax would place Scotland near the top of the European tax league. Scotland's unique taxation structure under a Scottish parliament would have a major impact on inward investment to the Scottish economy.
As my noble friend Lord Dundee said, in the period 1981–1991, some £4.2 billion of planned overseas investment has come to Scotland, creating 80,000 jobs. That flow of inward investment has been of great benefit to the Scottish economy as a whole and to Lanarkshire in particular. Scotland's ability to attract inward investment has undoubtedly been aided by the Government's reductions in income tax, corporation tax and business rates and their record on industrial relations. In 1990 there were fewer working days lost in Scotland through industrial disputes than in any year since the war. Completion of the single European market has significant inward investment implications, with non-European companies considering establishing a manufacturing plant in Europe so that their products can be regarded as European in origin. Scotland has benefited from that. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, said that what we had seen in the past was a brain drain to the south of England. I wonder whether that would not be even worse if the English economy were stronger and existed under a more beneficial tax and economic regime than did Scotland.
Undoubtedly talk of the constitutional position in Scotland will rock the confidence of commercial enterprises and individuals in Scotland. It is time that those on the other Benches said what they really believe in: unionism or separatism.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. At the time of the referendum in 1979, the then leader of the Conservative Party, at least in Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said that he did not like the scheme that was being put forward by the Labour Party. He advised people not to support it. He said that he and the Scottish Conservatives would bring forward a proper scheme of devolution. I am absolutely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, would remember that very well. Can the noble Lord say what work has been done since 1979 on a Conservative form of devolution as inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Home?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the main point is that we do not believe that devolution as proposed by the Labour Party, Liberal Party or any other party will be in the best interests of the people of Scotland or its economy. Those interests are safeguarded by a firm belief in the United Kingdom. That is what has preserved and helped not only Scotland but the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom over the past few centuries.
There is much more that I could say on that subject and on others. I could say much to my noble friend Lord Lyell on financial matters, to my noble friend Lord Lindsey and Abingdon on opencast coalmining and to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, on the

807
Western Isles. I am conscious that a lot of money has been spent on agriculture in the Western Isles over the past five years.
Scottish firms have been scoring successes even in these recessionary times. One need only instance the outstanding performance of British Aerospace at Prestwick with the remarkable Jetstream aircraft; the export achievements of smaller firms, such as Norfrost in Caithness, which have proved that distance can be no obstacle to successful marketing; and the orders won by Weirs of Cathcart and Kvaerner and Yarrows on the Upper Clyde, which have demonstrated that traditional Scottish skills in engineering and shipbuilding are still very much alive; not to mention the many other commercial enterprises, large and small companies, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Polwarth. It is that sort of record which gives me confidence in the Scottish economy. It is not just a record of government achievement. It is a record of people with the skills and incentives to work together and improve their lot.
My noble friend Lord MacFarlane talked about "Glasgow, city of community" and I talk of "Scotland, nation of community". I will not talk down Scotland and I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that he would not talk down Scotland either. Of course there have been problems, and in an imperfect world problems of one sort or another there will be; but if the resilience of these recent times is typical, as I believe it is, I have no hesitation in saying that we can look forward to a future that will not only consolidate the gains we have made but will also, I believe, see us making further progress along the road towards a successful and prosperous modern economy.
8.41 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, we have had a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in it and who have in many cases travelled far at personal inconvenience in order to do so. I, too, should like to add my congratulations to the three maiden speakers on three excellent speeches. First, the noble Lord, Lord MacFarlane, spoke about the regeneration of Glasgow. I think that we all share his pride and enthusiasm over what has happened there. Then my noble friend Lord Kintore told us about his pedigree Highland cattle breeding business and its problems. I hope he will soon have more profits to share with his wife. Lastly, the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, gave us a most entertaining speech about attracting Japanese golfers to Scotland, among other things. I very much hope that his suggestion will come true. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in hoping that all our three maiden speakers will become regular contributors to our debates.
Although we have not taken as long as I feared this evening due to the admirable self-restraint of most noble Lords, I am not going to inflict another speech on your Lordships and therefore I shall not mention all the speeches individually. But there is just one to which I should like to refer. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is no longer here, suggested that we
808
should have a debate on Scotland every year. I think that is an excellent suggestion; but he also seemed to imply that I would have to organise it. There I take issue with him. There are over 120 members of the Scottish Peers Association and I would respectfully suggest that another noble Lord should organise next year's debate. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: never on Fridays!
Lastly, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, very much for the trouble he has taken to answer almost all the points I raised. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Offshore Safety (Protection Against Victimisation) Bill [H.L.]
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I should perhaps explain to your Lordships why I felt it necessary to introduce a Private Member's Bill on the subject of offshore safety when we have only recently debated and passed the Government's Offshore Safety Bill. The fact is, however, that that Bill was very narrowly drafted: it was a technical Bill concerned with health and safety and it was so narrowly drafted that it was not possible to accommodate within it the concerns addressed by my Bill. Of course, we on this side of the House supported the Government's Bill and attempted to amend it in Committee to deal with the matter of victimisation or possible victimisation of employees, but the amendments were deemed to be out of order because they dealt with employment matters rather than health and safety issues.
The Offshore Safety Bill, as your Lordships will recall, was introduced by the Government to give effect to some of the recommendations of the honourable Lord Cullen in his report on the appalling Piper Alpha disaster. In that accident 165 employees on board the installation were killed, and two members of the crew of a rescue craft. The inquiry under Lord Cullen was an extensive one and the report massive, much of it highly technical. It does serve to indicate, even to lay persons such as myself, that impressive as the scientific and technical achievements are, the operations are extremely hazardous, although economically very beneficial to this country.
The Piper Alpha disaster hit the headlines because it was so utterly dreadful, with a devastating effect upon the communities from which the employees concerned came; but relatively minor incidents, some of them leading to deaths and injuries, have been fairly frequent occurrences. I have here a list of incidents which took place at around the same time as the Piper Alpha disaster, from July 1988 to November 1989.

809
There were about 30 incidents, some causing work to be halted for quite long periods and including two incidents leading to deaths and injuries.
In my Second Reading speech on the Government's Offshore Safety Bill on 14th November last, at col. 668, I referred to an accident and fire on an oil rig operated by Arco British, which resulted in the death of an operative and which led to a report which indicated that the accident could have been avoided if those in charge of the rig had operated proper control. And this incident took place very shortly after the Piper Alpha disaster, when everyone concerned should have been even more than usually alert to what might happen.
It is for this reason that the report by the honourable Lord Cullen is so important. Of course we are glad that some of his recommendations were embodied in the Government's Bill. We welcome all the innovations and the new regulatory system that is being put in place, but in one crucial respect the recommendations of the honourable Lord Cullen have not been contained in legislation; and that is the reason for my Bill. One of the most important sections of the Cullen report refers to what he calls the creation of a "safety culture". He believes that it is essential to involve the whole of the workforce in safety observance. He further says that the most visible instrument for the involvement of the workforce in safety is a safety committee system. He says that his remit does not extend to industrial relations, but he also says that trade union recognition is limited and employment of offshore workers is fragmented between a number of different employers, with a high proportion being employed by contractors. Many of the individuals concerned are employed on short-term contracts.
My Bill does not deal with industrial relations either, although I would say in passing that it is my belief that the employees would have far less fear of victimisation if there were widespread union recognition and proper union involvement in the election and training of safety representatives. The unions, to my certain knowledge, have been very willing to undertake such a task and the Cullen Report makes some favourable references to this.
However, Lord Cullen clearly understands that if the workforce is to be fully involved in safety, and particularly if individuals are to be found who are willing to serve as safety representatives, there must be some assurance that if they attempt to do a "safety" job conscientiously they will not risk losing their employment, and that they will not find, at the end of their short-term contract—and many of them, as I said earlier, are employed on short-term contracts—that it is not renewed for some unaccountable reason, which they may believe is because they have been too ready to point out breaches of safety regulations or possible health hazards.
That is particularly important in situations where there is still high unemployment. That is true of Scotland, for example, where much of the oil industry is based. If there are hundreds of people waiting to take your job if your contract is not renewed, pointing
810
out safety hazards may not rank as highly as the need to keep the job no matter what the conditions. Therefore, it becomes even more important to give protection to people who otherwise may feel vulnerable.
In his report, at paragraph 21.86, Lord Cullen said:
"For the present I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the type of protection provided in the case of trade union activities under Section 58(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 should also be afforded to the activities of an employee acting as a safety representative".
He repeats that in his final recommendations.
That is what my Bill seeks to achieve. It is very simple. On the Second Reading of the Government's Offshore Safety Bill, the Minister indicated that the Government accept all the recommendations of the Cullen Report but that they could not deal with this recommendation within the narrowly technical Bill then before the House. Therefore, I hope that the Government will now feel it possible to support the Bill.
I have received distinguished professional assistance in drafting the Bill, but if it is felt that there are technical flaws, perhaps they can be dealt with in Committee. I should be happy to support any amendments designed to improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
8.52 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I am delighted to speak briefly in support of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, on the convincing way in which she introduced it.
When we debated the Government's Offshore Safety Bill at the end of last year other noble Lords and I considered that a number of other matters should have been included in the Bill. For example, I recall saying that I should have liked to see some reference made to the need for all employees to be involved in the promotion of safety at work.
However, there was one matter to which we all referred; namely, the need to ensure that all employees working on offshore installations were protected against victimisation when acting as safety representatives or as members of safety committees. We said that because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said, in his report on the Piper Alpha disaster Lord Cullen made the specific recommendation that such provisions should be afforded by means of a provision similar to that found in Section 58 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
At all stages of the passage of the Offshore Safety Bill the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, insisted, first, that the Government accepted all the recommendations of the Cullen Report and, secondly, that because the recommendation concerning victimisation was an employment issue and therefore fell outside the scope of the Bill, the Government intended to deal with the matter as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presented itself.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, pointed out at the time, that meant that, meanwhile, safety

811
representatives would he left without statutory protection. Thanks to the initiative which has now been taken—and I quote once more the noble Viscount's phrase—a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself to deal with the matter of victimisation. Therefore, I hope that he will now prove as good as his word and will, on behalf of the Government, welcome the Bill.
As the noble Baroness said at the end of her remarks, it may be that there are some technical deficiencies in the Bill or it is not sufficiently comprehensive. In that case I join with the noble Baroness in hoping that the Minister will accept the principle and perhaps table any amendments on behalf of the Government, which may be needed, in Committee.
8.55 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it will not surprise the House to learn that the Opposition welcome this Bill. We support it and we thank my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden for introducing it. As my noble friend said, the objectives of the Bill could not be simpler. They are to provide the normal minimal protection for safety representatives who complain of acts, on the part of their employer, which may be illegal and which may cost lives, especially if they complain through their trade unions or through the inspectorate.
Of course, those people will have to prove their case and will have to prove that the principal reason for their dismissal is that they have made those complaints. They must prove that that is the sole or principal reason for their dismissal. This is a very simple Bill and extremely limited in its operation.
Indeed, someone from outside looking at our debates and looking at the situation may wonder why a provision of this kind has not existed before. They may wonder why it was not included when the Health and Safety at Work Act was first enacted. They may wonder why, when the provisions of the Act were applied to offshore operations in 1977, it was not included at that time. They may wonder why we have had to wait for such a long time and the appearance of the Cullen Report.
What is being suggested here is minimal and limited but, nevertheless, extremely necessary. I remind the House that because the recommendation concerned is recommendation 30 of the Cullen Report, that does not mean that it is relatively unimportant. Indeed, I argue that it is somewhere near the centre of what Lord Cullen is saying. We must remember that the central thrust of the Piper Alpha report was that what happened was not an accident in the pure sense of the word. It was not something which may well not have happened. The whole industrial relations and safety situation on the rig was a disaster waiting to happen.
Lord Cullen mentioned five defects or irresponsibilities on the part of the consortium or its management which led to the disaster: the failure to communicate about the removal of the safety valve; the failure of the emergency system which was supposed to deal with that situation; the failure of the water supply; the failure to foresee the effect of the
812
smoke which was generated and which made air rescue impossible; and the failure to supervise an alternative escape by sea.
Those mistakes were not just mistakes of management. There was a failure on the part of the Department of Energy's inspection system. That was superficial and inadequate even after the Piper Alpha disaster. When Lord Cullen recommended three measures which should be taken to solve that problem, the third and, in some ways, the most important measure led directly to the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Cullen said that there should be new regulations. Secondly, he said that there should be a transfer of responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Health and Safety Executive. Most important, he said that there had to be the development of a safety culture. In the development of a safety culture, as my noble friend Lady Turner said, Lord Cullen said that it was central to have the right attitudes between management and the workers for the development of that culture and the development of a climate of involvement of the workforce in safety as a central concern.
Paragraph 18.48—it has already been quoted and I do not apologise for quoting it again—says,
"Possibly the most visible instrument for the involvement of the workforce in safety is a safety committee system".
Why? Because it can pass,
"uncensored safety comments up the management line".
That brings us centrally to recommendation 30. How are uncensored safety comments to be passed up the management line unless there is some degree of protection for those people and their representatives?
We must therefore ask: what have been the Government's reactions so far? As the House is aware, we tried to introduce amendments to deal with this issue during the passage of the Government's Bill. The amendments did not reach the Floor of the House because we were told that the Bill was a safety Bill and we were proposing industrial relations. What did the Government say? After all, they had taken a long time to proceed as far as they had with the Bill. The disaster occurred on 6th July 1988. The inquiry was set up and reported to the Government in November 1990. Over two years had been lost. Another year was lost until the Government introduced the Bill to this House. On 14th November last, at col. 677 of the Official Report, the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, said that while the Government accepted all 106 recommendations, number 30 fell outside the scope of the Bill we were discussing. He added:
"We shall deal with the matter of victimisation as soon as a suitable legislative vehicle presents itself".
The question we must decide today is what is a suitable vehicle and, in particular, what is wrong with the vehicle we are now presenting to the Government. As we understand the replies of the Minister—I do not want to misunderstand him—he seemed to be suggesting that an appropriate vehicle could be the tenth labour relations Act, if the Government survive. It would be a successor to 1980, 1982, 1984 and so on. But that is not in the White Paper; it is not so far in the public pronouncements. If the Government say

813
this evening that that is the first sign of a suitable vehicle, then we shall have to wait until some time in 1993, if the Government survive.
Secondly, the Government may be saying—at one stage in the passage of the Bill the Minister seemed to be saying—that we must wait for the Government to implement the EC framework directive on safety. God knows when that will be.
Thirdly, in the same debate in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the noble Viscount appeared to be suggesting that the Government could not be expected to do anything about the matter until they brought before the House the results of their inquiries into the 1989 regulations review. Again, we do not know when that will be.
What is being said by the Opposition this evening in support of the Bill is that it must surely be the most appropriate vehicle and the most suitable moment. All the Government need do is accept the Bill—not necessarily as it stands but with amendments. Nevertheless, accept the Bill! This is surely the most suitable and appropriate moment.
I wish to make one further point. The Minister said that the Government accepted all 106 recommendations of Lord Cullen. On page 392 of Volume Two of the report five recommendations are listed. Three of those five do not involve any legislation at all. Therefore we are only talking about recommendation 30, which is the recommendation embodied in the Bill:
"Safety representatives should be protected against victimisation",
and so on. And recommendation 31. That is the one on which I should like the noble Viscount to explain his views. We will not necessarily table it as an amendment; it may not be suitable. But it would be suitable for the Government to give us some information about it. The recommendation says,
"The Offshore Installations (Safety Representatives and Safety Committees) Regulations 1989"
which we know are subject to review
"should be modified to the effect that the training of safety representatives should be determined and paid for by the operator".
The Government must have some influence over the review. It would perhaps be appropriate for the Government to suggest that recommendation 31 should also be accepted, and that the review—when it comes—should recommend that it be put into effect. That is for the future. For the present we ask the Government to accept the Bill.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I have the unusual task of being asked to sum up a somewhat one-sided debate. Certainly if the number of voices determine the matter then the Government must surely accept the Bill.
I believe that there are three major reasons why the Government should accept the Bill. The first, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, is that it is a suitable and proper vehicle to implement recommendation 30 of the Cullen Report. I shall not rehearse the arguments again on that matter which my friends have already dealt with, save to say that in the previous
814
debate on the Government's own Bill they were left in the somewhat remarkable position of accepting the entire Cullen Report and choosing to put forward a Bill which did not implement an important part of those recommendations; that is, the safeguards for safety representatives against victimisation. The second reason why we believe the Government have so far got the position wrong is the direction of the European Community which will gradually govern these areas.
The third reason is our clear view, and I believe that of everyone working in the field—certainly that of the Health and Safety Commission—that there is an indissoluble link between regulations relating to safety at work and the involvement of workers and all employees who take part in the work of accident prevention. There is therefore a link to their protection against victimisation in their employment. It is almost impossible to read a document on this matter, including those of the Health and Safety Commission, which does not refer to that link which the Government broke in choosing to implement a Bill which so far is concerned only with safety regulation.
The next reason I pass through quickly. The framework directive of the European Community No. 89/391 demands that we take certain steps. I am aware that the Government are proceeding, through the commission, with drafts to put them into effect. Part of the requirement of that directive is that workers should have a clear right to remove themselves from a dangerous, hazardous, serious and imminent danger at their place of work and to do so without fear of disadvantage or victimisation. In numerous articles especially Article 8 of the directive, that is made clear. That has not been made clear so far on oil rigs. One might say that in my noble friend's Bill, which I heartily congratulate her on pursuing in the way that she has, there might be matters inserted in that respect in Committee if the Government's drafts for implementing the directive are not wholly satisfactory.
Finally, as I have suggested, not every Bill, even from these Benches, is perfect. When, as we hope, the matter comes to Committee—I shall discuss this with my noble friends—we would like to consider inserting, for example, something which we believe was in the mind of Lord Cullen but which he does not advert to expressly. I refer to the fact that victimisation takes its toll not only by dismissal but also in our employment law generally by action short of dismissal, a situation which should be protected in the Bill.
I now come to a more difficult point. This Bill is attached to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. It is therefore attached to safety representatives who are appointed by recognised unions. That is a difficulty in our law and it is certainly a difficulty in implementing the directive. Recognition is voluntary and therefore there is a problem about employers who do not recognise unions. That has certainly arisen in the offshore industry. Therefore, we have put into the Bill—and here I congratulate my noble friend especially—Clause 1 (1) (b) which does not give rights only to the safety representative, who by the very terms of the Bill can only exist in law where the union is recognised, but also to the individual worker who is

815
allowed in law to complain either to his employer or to the health and safety inspectors about what he believes genuinely to be —it may be that one wants to insert that he had reasonable grounds for that belief —a breach of the safety regulations.
We believe that that is a most important paragraph. It is a right for the individual worker where the employer refuses to recognise a union and where, therefore, in law the safety representative does not have status. Moreover, we believe it right that under Article 11 paragraph 1, of the European framework directive 1989 the worker has the right to make proposals—which plainly include complaints to the employer—and under paragraph 6 he is explicitly given the right to appeal,
"to the authority responsible for safety and health protection at work if they consider that the measures taken and the means employed by the employer are inadequate for the purposes of ensuring health and safety at work".
Clause 1(1) (b) in the Bill purports to enact just that part of the directive. To remove it would be a very serious step indeed. We feel quite sure that the Government will not be minded to take any step of that kind. I believe that for once, late at night, there may be a consensus. I urge the Government to accept the Bill.
9.13 p.m
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has brought forward an important measure, the objective of which, as she will know, has considerable support from all sides. As noble Lords will know, it is designed to implement one of the recommendations of Lord Cullen following the Piper Alpha disaster in which he said that safety representatives should benefit from protection against victimisation for carrying out their functions.
The noble Baroness quoted the words of Lord Cullen, about the creation of a safety culture. She not only said that tonight but she gave a certain importance to that at the Second Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill. Of course that is implemented by way of the safety committee structure. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, drew attention to the creation of the safety culture.
I believe that the Government have made it clear, as I have had cause to repeat more than once over the past few weeks, that we accept without reservation every recommendation of the Cullen Report. Regarding this particular recommendation, No. 30, we have also given explicit assurance that it is our intention to implement related but more far-reaching requirements contained in the European Community health and safety framework directive as soon as we have a suitable legislative vehicle. By extending these provisions offshore Lord Cullen's concerns will be fully met.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked me when that will be done. The Government are planning to include provisions in legislation to be brought forward in the next Parliament, although obviously I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech. I can, however, anticipate the next Parliament, I believe. No suitable
816
earlier vehicle existed. We debated the matter of victimisation thoroughly during the passage of the Offshore Safety Bill through this House. That Bill is not such a vehicle. As I then pointed out, although essential, it is a technical enabling measure which deals solely with health and safety issues. Provisions for employment protection, however desirable, are clearly beyond its scope. The noble Baroness and others have already attempted that route. There is no doubt that that Bill cannot be used for such a purpose.
However, the noble Baroness has now presented the House with a further option in the shape of this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has indicated that that gives me an opportunity to stand by what I said at the Second Reading of the Offshore Safety Bill. I listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness in the course of our discussions on that Bill. I have to say that there is very little between us in what we are looking to achieve. I have also had the benefit of what was said in Monday's debate in another place on the Second Reading of the Government's Bill. Once again, protection of safety representatives against victimisation was, very properly, a matter of great concern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment said then that he would take into account the points made that afternoon before determining the Government's final attitude to the Bill of the noble Baroness.
He went on to suggest that her Bill might prove a more promising vehicle for Recommendation 30 than the Offshore Safety Bill. After hearing the noble Baroness introduce her Bill this evening, I can only agree. The Bill now before us deals directly, or aims to, with Lord Cullen's Recommendation 30. The Government categorically accept that recommendation. We intend to implement it. I think that noble Lords opposite want us to implement it and here may be an early opportunity to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in the course of his remarks wondered why a measure of this sort was not implemented in 1977. But he never gave us an answer to that. He also asked whether the training of safety representatives, which is dealt with in Recommendation 31, would be paid for by the operatives. I think he is aware that a review of the safety representatives is under way. I can do no better than quote the words of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State:
"a review of the regulations is under way. As soon as the review is complete, the Government will implement this recommendation together with any other necessary changes." —[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/92; col. 681.]
I think that answers the question of the noble Lord.
In its present form, however, the Bill before us does not fully achieve the result Lord Cullen proposed. The noble Baroness indicated just now that she would welcome amendments where the intention of the recommendation had not been fulfilled. We shall therefore seek to bring forward for consideration in Committee amendments which ensure that the Bill fully implements Lord Cullen's recommendation.
I have listened again very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I shall consider carefully what he had to say on Clause 1(1) (b). I hope

817
that the wish on all sides to ensure the health and safety of those working offshore, and the co-operation we have experienced on the Offshore Safety Bill, will be continued in our joint aim to find an appropriate way to implement Recommendation 30.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement. I am very glad indeed to learn that the Government accept in full Recommendation 30 and will seek to introduce in Committee a series of amendments designed to give full effect to it. My colleagues and I look forward to seeing the text of those amendments and to speaking to them at the Committee and Report stages.
As I indicated, we are very happy to welcome amendments that will strengthen the Bill. On both sides of the House we know what we are after. We seek to ensure complete compliance with the recommendations of Lord Cullen. I welcome in particular the noble Viscount's response to my noble friend Lord McCarthy in regard to Recommendation 31. I am sure that on this side of the House we shall watch with interest to see what emerges from the review in regard to training, which we also view as a matter of considerable importance.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Investment in Industry
9.21 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the continuing recession they have any plans for stimulating investment in industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Question for debate because, although industry and the state of the economy have been the subject of many debates over recent years, the prolongation of the present recession has made industrial recovery a vital issue. Indeed the Bank of England's latest quarterly bulletin indicates that in spite of many predictions no recovery has yet occurred.
The problems of British industry, its size and competitiveness, are not new. Attention has been drawn to them over several decades. More recently, in our own House the reports of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade in 1985 and of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1991 on innovation in manufacturing industry have represented painstaking reviews of industrial policy and have put forward many recommendations for long-term industrial growth. Industry was particularly badly hit in the recession of 1980–81 and has once again been hard hit during the present recession. The need therefore for measures to correct the present situation and to hold out some prospect of long-term growth has become particularly urgent.
The main problem with which British industry has had to contend in the post-war period has been the ups and downs of the economic cycle. More often than not these have been brought about by excessive relaxation of credit, leading to balance of payments difficulties and inflation, which in turn have necessitated
818
restrictive action. The impact of world economic fluctuations, as on the present occasion, has exacerbated the cycles. What is needed above all for industry is a background of greater economic stability. The move towards European economic and monetary union may well hold out this prospect and this would need to be accompanied by institutional changes within Britain. In the meantime, however, a way has to be found to correct the present critical situation.
The hope that recovery will come through a resurgence of consumer demand is fraught with difficulty. In the first place there is no sign that such a resurgence in demand is taking place. There is a lack of consumer confidence, indebtedness is still widespread and consumers are likely to remain cautious for a very long time before they indulge once more in a spending spree. Further, when they do so they may be sowing the seeds of the next recession just as the spending spree in the late 1980s led to the present recession.
Throughout the post-war period the revival of consumer demand has generally been accompanied by a substantial increase in imports because of the lack of capacity to produce sufficient goods to satisfy the demand in Britain. It is regrettable that even during the course of the present recession Britain has continued to run a substantial balance of payments deficit whereas a surplus might have been expected in view of the reduced demand for imports. If consumer demand should pick up that deficit will clearly grow to even greater proportions.
What is needed is not a consumer-led recovery but an investment-led recovery. By that means capacity could be built up not only to expand exports but to meet an increase in consumer demand when it finally emerges. A diversion of resources to stimulate investment in industry is clearly called for. Such a diversion should not lead to a major increase in public expenditure. To a large extent it should be self-correcting through increases in tax revenue both from enterprises and through the generation of more jobs. That, in turn, would lessen the pressure on social expenditure and, above all, ease the excessive burden of unemployment.
Many proposals have been made on how industry in Britain might now be re-activated. I should like to put forward the following five-point package. First, the most important requirement is a further noticeable reduction in interest rates. Real rates of interest in Britain are the highest that they have been for a very long time. It should be possible to make an adjustment without jeopardising sterling's position in the exchange rate mechanism. The resurgence of confidence would correct any technical weakening in the currency.
Secondly, a specific incentive to industry to invest should be given by increasing investment allowances. The CBI has proposed that they should be raised from the present level of 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. Others have suggested even bigger allowances. Thirdly, consideration should be given to preferential interest rates for small businesses. They have been particularly badly hit in the present recession, not least by delays in payment by their major customers. A system of

819
preferential rates of that sort has been in operation in France and in Germany for many years with beneficial effect.
Fourthly, the Government should remove specific financial burdens on industry. In particular the recent imposition of monthly VAT returns in place of the normal quarterly returns on the 1,600 largest companies, while no doubt an interesting proposition for the Treasury, would take £1.5 billion out of industry's cash flow at the very time when it is most needed. I cannot think of a worse time to introduce such a measure. There is also the impact of surplus advance corporation tax on companies with overseas earnings, which acts as another absorber of cash flow and to which the CBI has drawn attention in its report on economic priorities for 1992.
Fifthly and finally, steps should be taken to stimulate investment in the infrastructure. The construction industry is now going through one of its worst post-war crises. A major corrective could be brought about by releasing more of the local authority housing funds to which reference has been made many times in your Lordships' House. Transport, and in particular rail transport, is another area where further investment is urgently required. Authorisation for British Rail to borrow from the private sector in addition to the public sector funds allocated to it would have a positive impact. Incentives for training and research should also be considered as part of the infrastructure package.
Therefore, what is now urgently needed is a combination of measures to stimulate investment in industry and in the infrastructure. I have indicated what those measures might be. There is a growing consensus in support of them. Without such measures it is difficult to see an early end to the recession. If it is brought to an end by a revival of consumer demand, the seeds of the next recession might well be sown. By stimulating investment in industry and the supporting infrastructure we should effectively be preparing ourselves for the more stable environment which is being held out by moves towards economic and monetary union.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is to be congratulated on asking this Question. It is a matter which worries all of us and the country. I have noted, as have many others, the dismal reports that are coming in day by day of large-scale employment losses in a variety of industries. Yesterday, it was 3,000 from Gateway (a retail firm); today it is 2,200 in British Aerospace (a manufacturing industry). What will come tomorrow? That catalogue of lost jobs, day by day and week by week, is sapping the confidence not just of industry but of individuals; and yet the Government appear to be moribund in their thinking, and sitting on their hands.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right, because in 1985 he and I sat on the Select Committee discussing overseas trade under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. We predicted what would happen unless the Government then took serious action. We predicted that as the production of North
820
Sea oil reduced we would face a severe balance of payments problem. We urged the Government to resuscitate and stimulate manufacturing industry, but what was the reply from the then Chancellor? Insults to the committee and a reliance upon what he termed market forces. Now we know where market forces have taken us: to slump and high unemployment.
I ask the Government how high they are prepared to see unemployment figures go. Is it to 2.6 million, 3 million or 3.5 million? When will they take some action to stop that inexorable and seemingly inevitable rise in unemployment which is now becoming the scourge of the nation? The Government need to take immediate action. The proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, are right. We must stop listening to computers and economic experts. We need to take economic models with a pinch of salt, because so far they have not delivered the goods. We may now need a dose of good common sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed the way. He said that people would be more prepared to invest if interest rates were reduced. Like him, I believe that it is possible to reduce interest rates. Indeed, it is vital that interest rates are reduced substantially and soon. That is one thing the Government can do. I also agree that investment in industry must be made more attractive by better investment allowances. The future lies in investment in industry; not in laissez-faire economics, but in helping the industrialists to expand their businesses and provide goods and services, thus helping unemployment.
I also believe that there needs to be a stimulus to spending in a way that will encourage spending where it is needed among the poorest people in our nation. The way to do that is not by taking a penny or twopence off income tax; it is to restore VAT to the 15 per cent. that it was last year, before the Government tinkered with it. In that way, the right people will buy the right goods and encourage further investment in manufacturing industry.
In conclusion, I warn the Government that the worst long-term solution would be to stimulate the housing market. There is enough money in the housing market as it is; we need the money in manufacturing industry. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the Government and the Chancellor in his Budget will take heed of what has been said here tonight and elsewhere, not only by the Opposition but by experts in the matter. I hope that the Government will get off their hands and do something about the economy.
9.36 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Ezra in the five points he put forward in the debate. I wish to stress the most important role for Government, setting the circumstances in which industry can operate. I deplore the Government's record during their period of office, perpetuating the stop-go cycle of boom and bust which we have had in this country since the war. It is most important for the future to get out of this cycle and I therefore welcome moves towards participation in the European monetary system, the exchange rate mechanism. I equally regret that we have not been able

821
to participate with full commitment. That would be in the interests of this country and of reducing interest rates for the benefit of business.
I further wish to stress the huge neglect by the Government of the country's infrastructure. I deplore the way in which they have used the proceeds of privatisation, selling the capital assets of the nation and using the proceeds for current expenditure rather than ploughing them back as investment in improving the infrastructure for the benefit of private enterprise.
I fully support the five points made by my noble friend Lord Ezra and hope that we shall see considerable improvement on them by the Government.
9.39 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ezra spoke of two aspects of this extremely important Question: first, the importance of increased investment; and, secondly, the need to ensure that when the recovery comes it is led by investment and not by consumption. I take it that the Government agree with both those points. My noble friend then went on to make five suggestions as to what should be done. I should be interested to hear whether the Government accept them also or, if not, what counter proposals they have.
I have one or two comments of my own to make. The demand for investment is high and rising worldwide. There is a need for immense investment, for example, in Eastern Europe. That makes it more important than ever that we make proper use of the savings and investment available. It is not only that we need more trained workers, but we wish to ensure that the investment which we can provide assists workers by increasing the number of tools and the amount of horsepower at their disposal and ensures that these are not wasted. Unfortunately it seems to me that we have become sadly incompetent. The stories of the British Library, the Channel Tunnel and the London Underground escalators all point to our failure to use our investment efficiently. To my mind the waste of resources is one of the most serious problems facing Britain today.
I can give two examples of that from Orkney. I know that area well. First, Orkney local council has now poured between £6 and £12 million into trying to create a short sea crossing: no result has been achieved. Secondly, the pipes which are laid to transport oil in the North Sea are nearly all made either on the Continent or in Japan. That does not indicate efficient management of our affairs at home. I press the Government to continue to ensure—I must confess that they have been doing this—that public and local authorities make the best use of the investment available to them.
It is absolutely essential that we establish stability in the economy. It is also essential not only that inflation is temporarily reduced but also that it is kept down to negligible levels. One reads about enormous salaries being paid to the leaders in our society. I have read that public servants will be awarded a pay increase far in excess of the rate of inflation. When one
822
reads of the amount of money that is apparently available for secondary purposes, one wonders whether the Government have any faith in their ability to reduce inflation more or less to vanishing point.
I believe British industry bears an extraordinary burden in the form of our complex tax and accounting systems. For a brief period I belonged to an international organisation. It appears that foreign industry does not suffer from that handicap to the same extent. Again I urge the Government to simplify and reduce as far as possible the various taxes and other regulations which industry has to deal with.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly stressed the importance of the infrastructure. With the advent of the Channel Tunnel it is essential that communications from the North and West and from Scotland should be improved so they are much more adequate than is the case at present. That is particularly essential for the railways. However, it is also necessary to improve the roads, ports and air services.
At the moment personal savings are high. I believe they have been increasing. At the same time there is a large unused pool of resources in the form of unemployed people and other resources. It would seem an ideal moment to bring those resources together. Future generations will be amazed that our interest rates appear to be at the mercy of movements of foreign money in and out of this country and have little to do with the needs of our industry and services. I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of the banks to change that situation. They could either establish a separate interest rate for production and investment or they could devise some other means of conducting our affairs.
That may be a long-term solution and in the long term other changes may be needed in banking, such as a greater shift from loans to equity. However, in the meantime, we face this serious problem of a lack of investment to which my noble friend has drawn attention. Members on all sides of the House have admitted that a problem exists. My noble friend has proposed five remedies which could be put into operation more or less at once. We shall be extremely interested to hear the Minister's remarks.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this debate on this matter. The need to stimulate investment is the most vital aspect of our economic policy. I regret that so few noble Lords have shown an interest in this debate. However, as I am an academic I am used to small audiences. Therefore I shall ignore my small audience tonight and act as if what matters is the issue we are discussing and not the number of noble Lords who are interested in it.
We face one of the deepest recessions that has been recorded for a long time. The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is especially urgent because of that fact. It will not do to argue that the current recession is somehow caused by foreign influences. All parties have to stop the practice of claiming credit for all the

823
good things and blaming foreigners for all the bad things. That will not be sustained by any examination of data.
It may be that Japan, Germany and other countries in the EC suffer what we call a growth recession—their growth rate has slowed down. We have a negative growth rate, which is different from a growth recession. We are also suffering one of the longest recessions of recent history. Although about five months ago the Government claimed that the recession had ended because output had increased by a fraction of 1 per cent., if we discount North Sea oil it is clear that that was a hollow claim.
I do not want to make a party political point. The important matter is that this is an unusual situation in British economic history. Therefore it is urgent that all good people get their heads together and ask how we are to get out of this situation. I recognise that there are constraints. Our membership of the exchange rate mechanism constrains us. I recognise also that we do not want to do anything which will disturb the fragile confidence of the international financial markets. However, at the same time I want to argue that doing nothing is not the right strategy. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having put forward a set of concrete proposals.
There are two problems. There is the problem of investment in industry during the recession. However, in the background there is a longer term problem. The UK economy invests less in all activities in comparison with our competitors such as Germany and Japan. For example, we invest about 18 per cent. of our GDP whereas Germany invests 21 per cent. and Japan about 30 per cent. There are accounting problems and, as an economist, I know that such numbers never mean exactly what they are supposed to mean. However, by and large it is clear that other countries invest a larger proportion of their GDP.
At the same time the long term trend of investment in manufacturing industry in this country has been downward in terms of the proportion of GDP invested. I have obtained figures from Economic Trends which show that in the 1970s we invested about 3 per cent. of GDP in manufacturing. In the early 1980s that fell to 2 per cent. and it fell to below 2 per cent. in 1983. Now it is barely crawling up to 2.8 per cent.
Whatever is said—and it was said by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer but two that manufacturing does not matter and that it was money which was important—it is very important that manufacturing investment is maintained. We are a trading nation and tradeable goods matter, and manufacturing industry makes tradeable goods. If we do not have manufacturing we will not have tradeable goods and exports and we will be in trouble.
Of course, we may finance any level of deficit, as Nigel Lawson used to say when he was Chancellor, but we cannot do that at any rate of interest we choose. If we run deficits we pay high interest costs. Even within the ERM, hard discipline though it is, I would submit that our currently high interest rates are due to the fact that we are financing a large deficit on manufacturing account and need to offer high interest
824
rates to the world at large. Even within the ERM we could have had lower interest rates if we had run our affairs better. Indeed, Nigel Lawson when Chancellor confessed that deregulation of the financial sector was a mistake whose consequences were unanticipated. We got into a bad financial boom and we are now paying the cost of it.
It is clear that the current levels of investment as a proportion of GDP are inadequate. Even if one were to argue that some manufacturing had to be reclassified as services and so on the overall level of investment, growth rate and investment in manufacturing would be inadequate.
The recession at hand is a serious matter. The Engineering Employers' Federation has argued very cogently that it is worried about the level of investment in the economy. If one looks at the total of net new fixed investment as a percentage of domestic product one finds that even at the peak of the 'eighties (1989) as a proportion of net domestic product investment did not exceed the level of 1974. While there has been a recovery since 1981 it has not been adequate and we have to start thinking seriously about the problems. The problems relate to the crucial activities of engineering and construction. We have to encourage investment in those two activities.
I will come to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords. If we are to have higher investment it is obvious that within the exchange rate mechanism our scope for raising interest rates is limited. Although there may be a difference of opinion on the matter, I argue that the Government could have been bolder even within the ERM and got interest rates down faster than they have. Opportunities have been missed. I do not want to raise hopes but it could have been 9½ per cent. rather than 10½ per cent. Over the next two or three weeks we face the prospect of having to raise interest rates if the Bundesbank decides to do so. That would be catastrophic for the economy.
We come to the question of what we can do in regard to fiscal policy because our room for manoeuvre in monetary policy is limited. There is tripartisan agreement that we are in the ERM and want a stable macro-economic framework. I know that my noble friend Lord Stoddart will disagree with me, but I beg his forgiveness. He has limited tolerance for economists and economic models but I beg leave to differ with him.
Fiscal policy has been a dormant instrument for a long time —not fiscal policy as regards public spending. One of the paradoxes of the Autumn Statement was that the Government gave up their dogma on public spending as such. They tolerated a public spending borrowing requirement of £10.5 billion which we expect to be overshot by £1 billion or £2 billion. I do not complain about that. I am not a monetarist hyena; I am, or used to be, a Keynesian. I complain about the fact that it is a passive fiscal overrun from which we suffer rather than an active fiscal policy. It is not just that we need to absorb the additional unemployment benefits that we have to give; nor the fact that we have to have an overrun of PSBR. I should like to see an active fiscal policy within

825
the ERM framework which we can implement. The pity is that the Government have seemed to be very passive in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made a number of suggestions. I am happy to say that, although not entirely, there is a great deal of convergence in the ideas put forward by the Labour Party and those which he put forward. It is quite clear that we need a major set of incentives for investment. In order to get out of recession they may be temporary incentives: investment allowance and quick write-offs brought forward. We need to take steps that will encourage firms to write off old plant more rapidly; we should give them incentives or tax holidays for investments being made currently. A whole host of measures could be formulated. I should be quite happy to spell them out in detail if the Government wish me to do so. It would mean an accelerated depreciation allowance or a tax postponement. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, proposed increasing investment allowances from 25 per cent. to 40 per cent. We need things of that order which are a temporary measure. They will be returned to normal later on. They will bring forward investment so that we can get out of the recession faster. That is most important.
The noble Lord also put forward the idea that we should have preferential interest rates for small businesses. That is an interesting proposition. That may perhaps be done by giving preferential tax treatment to small businesses compared with large businesses. There will be problems within the EC about making preferential interest rate payments for small businesses as against large businesses. But the idea is to do it either by way of corporation tax or other taxes that the small firms pay. We ought to be able to discriminate so that small firms will either pay less for the cost of finance, pay less in turnover tax of some sort or are able to postpone their payment until times are better.
Although the noble Lord did not mention the uniform business rate, it is causing a lot of heartache to many firms. I throw out for the moment the notion that it would not be a bad idea for the Government to say that this is a recession year; we recognise that the uniform business rate was based on evaluations made at a prosperous time but the prosperous time has gone and we are giving firms a small concession for another day. That would put up the PSBR. We recognise that. However, the Government have also said that budgets are to be balanced over the cycle, not year by year. I think that that would be a financially prudent action rather than suffering from the deep recession that we have on our hands.
The noble Lord made other proposals about investment in infrastructure and changing the VAT return. The idea is that there should be a clear set of temporary relief measures which have small financial cost, or rather postponed financial cost, and which ought to be implemented now. They are urgent because we want the economy out of recession.
One peculiar characteristic of this recession as distinct from previous recessions—and there were two major recessions in 1974–75 and 1980–81—is that
826
when the economy got out of recession then the growth rate was much higher than is predicted for the current recession. So not only is the recession deep but the Treasury and everybody else expect the recovery to be rather luke-warm. That is the case because we have a lack of activism in fiscal policy.
I suggest that what was good enough in 1981 and 1975 should be good enough in 1992. We can do things which will get us out of the recession with a much more accelerated recovery than we have now. A growth rate of 1½ per cent. following one of the deepest recessions in the post-war period is just not good enough. Fiscal prudence, economic prudence and the national interest require that we should do whatever is in our power—and there is a lot in our power—to get us out of the recession as quickly as possible and as steeply as possible. I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having put this before us.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and, I think, all noble Lords who have spoken when they argue that investment is vital to the continued success of this country's industry. Investment provides the capacity for growth and the means both for introducing new techniques and products, and for improving productivity. But we must always remember that investment is the means to an end, not an end in itself. We must not fall into the trap of thinking that all investment is necessarily good. As the economies of Eastern Europe have discovered, high levels of investment are of themselves no guarantee of economic prosperity.
We must also avoid the temptation to view investment too narrowly. Investment in fixed assets such as plant and machinery is important but so is investment in people and ideas—in imparting new skills through training and in research and development leading to new innovations. Investment in such intangibles enables firms to exploit the full benefits of their investment in fixed assets, and it enables employees to adapt more easily to new technology.
Moreover, we need investment in all sectors of the economy: in service industries as well as in manufacturing. For too long now there has been a sterile debate about the relative importance of these sectors. In truth, as the CBI recognises in its admirable report Competing with the World's Best, all sectors of the economy are inextricably linked and interdependent. Service industries provide a substantial market for manufacturers' products while manufacturing depends on many services, for example, transport and distribution, for its success. In saying that, I do not in any way denigrate the importance of manufacturing to the nation's wealth. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have said many times before—but it bears repeating—that we cannot imagine a healthy economy without a vigorous manufacturing sector.
Proposals are often put forward for increasing investment by means of tax allowances, grants and other forms of subsidy. I cannot be expected to comment on anything which my right honourable

827
friend the Chancellor may or may not include in his Budget, but I will say that the 1984 reforms of business taxation sought to widen the tax base by removing special incentive allowances, thereby enabling substantial reductions to be made in the rate of corporation tax. This set the pattern for similar reforms in many other countries. Following our tax reforms, companies are left with more of their profits to invest where and when they, and not the Government, think best.
We have reduced the main rate of corporation tax from 52 per cent. when we took office to 33 per cent. now. We have also cut the rate for smaller companies from 42 per cent. to 25 per cent., and raised the level of profits at which that rate applies to £0.25 million —a fourfold increase over the lifetime of this Government. As a result, we now have the lowest main rate of corporation tax and the most favourable tax regime for smaller companies of all the main industrial nations, to the great benefit of our industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords called for a package of government measures to stimulate an investment-led recovery. However, greater investment is of no use to either the investor or the country unless it is aimed at the satisfaction of anticipated demand. I suggest that that is why calls for such measures put the cart before the horse. Investment is determined by the expectation of future demand and profits, not by intervention or subsidy. The CBI understands that well. It recognises, as do the noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Cobbold, that the best stimulus to investment is provided by a stable economic environment.
That is the answer also to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The only way to increase job opportunities is to get the economy right. That is why the Government have made the defeat of inflation their number one priority—a commitment reinforced by their membership of the ERM and re-emphasised in the latest Bank of England quarterly bulletin, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
Experience shows that the best performing economies are built upon a foundation of low inflation. Inflation makes industry uncompetitive, erodes profitability and creates uncertainty thereby destroying both the means and the incentive to invest. It encourages an emphasis on the short term because, as I said when we debated this subject last month, it destroys confidence in the future. When the ability to plan for the long term is undermined in that way, is it any surprise if investment suffers?
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Stoddart, called for a reduction in interest rates. Interest rates have already fallen by 4.5 percentage points since we joined the European exchange rate mechanism. That is a substantial fall; it saves industry almost £6 billion each year on its interest bill. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has made clear that interest rates will be set at an appropriate level to keep sterling within its ERM bands and to bear down on inflation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not true that although interests rates have fallen by 4.5 per cent., the real rate of interest has nearly doubled over the past year?
Lord Reay: My Lords, be that as it may, we consider that it would be a grave mistake to cut interest rates prematurely in order to give a short-term stimulus to the economy. That would take risks with inflation. I assure noble Lords that the best guarantee of low interest rates is low inflation.
Of course, establishing a favourable tax regime and defeating inflation are not the only ways in which government can seek to improve the climate for investment. By scrapping pay controls, price controls, exchange controls and a host of other unnecessary restrictions we have freed industry to concentrate on its main task: creating wealth and jobs. Privatisation has boosted incentives and promoted business efficiency, resulting in almost every case in increased output and increased investment. And by reforming trade union laws we have restored managers' ability to manage. As a result, the number of days being lost through stoppages has fallen to little more than 5 per cent. of the average of the 1970s, contributing substantially to businessmen's confidence in the future.
Nevertheless, there are areas in which the Government do have a more direct role to play in supporting investment. Research and development is one such area. Innovation is the principal source of economic growth but the market on its own will not generate an adequate level of investment in pure or pre-competitive R&D. That is why we spend £3 billion a year on civil R&D, a similar share of national income to that spent by the Japanese Government.
The noble Lords, Lord Ezra, Lord Grimond and Lord Cobbold, pointed to the role the Government have to play in establishing and maintaining the infrastructure which underpins industry's ability to grow and to generate wealth. Consequently, we are committed to a major programme of investment in transport which will see the Department of Transport's capital expenditure on roads more than double by 1994–1995; and investment in the railways is at its highest level for 30 years. Next year alone, British Rail and London Transport plan to invest over £2½ billion. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also said, the concept of the infrastructure goes much wider than just transport. For example, it includes a skilled workforce. This year alone some £2.8 billion will be spent on training, enterprise and vocational education—two-and-a-half times as much in real terms as was spent in 1978–79.
The success of the Government's policies can be judged from our remarkable record in attracting inward investment to this country. In the three years to 1990, the latest period for which figures are available, almost half of all inward investment into the European Community from Japan and the USA came to the UK. That is a measure of overseas investors' confidence in the Government's policies and the long-term prospects for the economy.
It is true that there has been a fall recently in investment. But there are bound to be fluctuations in the volume of investment over the economic cycle. It is important to place such figures in context. Business investment rose by 45 per cent. between 1986 and 1989 and in the 1980s as a whole grew faster in the UK than

829
in any other major industrialised country except Japan. Last year business investment took a higher share of the nation's resources than at any time during the 1970s or indeed the first half of the 1980s. Despite the recent fall, business investment is still more than half as high again now as it was in 1981.
Not only has the quantity of investment risen but so too has its quality. The rate of return in industry rose sharply during the 1980s; and according to the OECD, the UK was the only major nation to experience a rise in capital productivity—that is to say, the output produced by a unit of capital—in the business sector over the past decade.
Anxiety is sometimes expressed at the performance of manufacturing investment. The distinction between manufacturing and other sectors has become increasingly blurred. During the 1980s many manufacturers contracted out substantial blocks of work which they previously undertook in-house. As a consequence, investment in such items as office machines might now be classified as service sector investment where in earlier years it would have been treated as manufacturing investment. Nevertheless, despite falling during the recession, manufacturing investment remains over a third higher than it was in 1981; and, given that it normally lags the business cycle, it is heartening that manufacturing investment rose in the third quarter of last year and that the Central Statistical Office survey of investment intentions indicates a further rise in 1992.
As I have said, it is a mistake to view investment narrowly. British industry has come increasingly to recognise the importance of investment in intangibles. As the CBI report to which I referred says,
"a major factor in the improved performance of UK manufacturing has been an increased emphasis on quality, training and innovation".
Employers now spend over £20 billion a year on training; and research and development performed and funded by industry grew by almost half in the six years to 1989, the latest period for which figures are available. Most encouragingly, surveys of CBI members' intentions show that investment in such intangibles is even now holding up well.
Therefore, we must not allow ourselves to become discouraged by short-term falls in fixed investment. The benefits of the surge in both the quality and quantity of investment in the 1980s have not been lost: those benefits will come through during the 1990s. As we move out of recession, they will become apparent in increased productivity, increased competitiveness, increased profitability, increased employment prospects and increased national wealth.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who said that it was difficult to see an early end to the recession. We have made no secret of the fact that the recession has been both longer and deeper than expected, reflecting the slowdown in the world economy. It is not only in the United Kingdom that output has fallen, although I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who suggested that. The United States, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand have
830
all been in recession. Australia, Sweden and Finland are in recession and there has been a fall in industrial output in Japan.
The conditions for recovery—lower inflation and interest rates—are in place. Although business and consumer confidence has faltered recently, it remains higher than a year ago. Leading indicators point firmly to an upturn in output in the course of the year, as the latest Bank of England quarterly bulletin makes quite clear.
The 1990s will be a decade of immense opportunity for British industry. In the European Community, the completion of the single market will bring access to a home market of 340 million consumers and vast new markets will open up as Eastern Europe shakes off the legacy of state control and joins the capitalist world.
The Government are determined that industry shall be fully equipped to take maximum advantage of these opportunities. We have a policy to achieve that. It is not the tired old policy of quick fixes, subsidy and intervention which has so miserably failed this country in the past. It is the creation of a framework within which industry can make profitable investment according to its own priorities, free from meddling by government, and be rewarded appropriately.
Our policies are bearing fruit. Inflation has been more than halved since it peaked at nearly 11 per cent. As I have said, interest rates have fallen by 4.5 percentage points since we joined the exchange rate mechanism. The noble Lord is interrupting the final moments of my peroration. Does he insist?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he concede that, during the days of bad intervention and so forth, the proportion of GDP invested in manufacturing was higher than it has been throughout the 1980s? Does he agree that even now it has not recovered to that earlier level? If the noble Lord is interested, I can inform him that it was about 3 per cent. in 1979. Since then it has not attained that level.
Lord Reay: My Lords, for one moment I thought of saying that, as regards the tired old policies, it was the intention of noble Lords opposite to return to them. I forebore to do so. I can only interpret the noble Lord as suggesting that those are the policies which he would like to see his government take up again were they back in power. As I said, our policies are bearing fruit. Inflation is down; interest rates are down; the conditions for economic recovery are in place. Against that background, I have every confidence that industry will in full measure invest for the future.

Protection of Badgers Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
Severn Bridges Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.

  MILK MARKETING BOARD: FUTURE
  MILK MARKETING BOARD: FUTURE
  EC POLICE CO-OPERATION
  EC POLICE CO-OPERATION
  HIGHER RATE TAX: YIELD COMPARISONS
  HIGHER RATE TAX: YIELD COMPARISONS
  BR PASSENGER'S CHARTER: UNMANNED STATIONS
  BR PASSENGER'S CHARTER: UNMANNED STATIONS
  GAS ACT 1986, SECTION 8 AUTHORISATIONS
  GAS ACT 1986, SECTION 8 AUTHORISATIONS
  LEICESTER DIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION
  LEICESTER DIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION