Sitting of 19 February 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ABERDEEN HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Strathclyde Regional Council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 83.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Domestic Rates
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has had on the subject of domestic rates; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I receive very few such representations. The overwhelming majority of taxpayers have no wish to see the reintroduction of unfair domestic rates.
    Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend agree that domestic rates were especially unfair to single people, and will he reassure the House that he, at least, has no intention of returning to a system that discriminated against many pensioners?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. It is extraordinary that the Labour party is planning that widows, for example, should enjoy no discount over households full of wage earners. It is incredible that the Labour party proposes that there should be no limit on the tax that a widow would pay on the house in which she has lived all her life. It is incredible also that the Labour party proposes for a widow four different intrusive valuations of her house, and proposes, too, that that same widow should be penalised with higher taxation if she has made improvements to her property. That is Labour party policy, and I shall have nothing to do with it.
    Mr. John Evans: Does the Minister acknowledge that when we had a domestic rating system almost every citizen in the land made sure that he or she registered to vote? Will he now confirm that one side effect of the appalling poll tax is that more than a million citizens of this country have not registered to vote? Will he mount a campaign to ensure
    314
    that every citizen in the land registers for a vote—especially so that those votes can be cast in the general election?
    Mr. Portillo: I know that the Labour party thinks that it has lost the election, and is looking for an excuse. That is what is known as a pre-emptive whinge. If anybody has given up his right to vote, in the misguided intention of not paying his taxes, he will get no sympathy from the public —and more fool he, for listening to the Labour Members of Parliament who urged people not to pay their community charge.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency the majority of people infinitely prefer the council tax to Labour's alternative—the so-called fair rates, which are nothing but a return to the dreaded rating system that we had before, and which was especially hated in the south of England?
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend's constituents were often paying £2,000 on their houses, whether or not they could afford it, and whether or not they were widows or pensioners. Who could possibly advocate returning to such an unfair system? Labour is the only party which could advocate that.
    Mr. Alton: If fairness is to be the criterion, does the Minister agree that it is fundamentally unjust that people should be expected to pay twice—that people should be surcharged in cities such as Liverpool, where last year the cost was £71 per head, after people had already paid their bills? Next year it could cost £2 extra a week—£100 per head—to pay for people who have refused to pay their poll tax? Does the Minister agree that that—and the practice of sending vexatious summonses to people who have paid their bills, and who are being forced to pay £12 a head for the privilege of receiving such a summons—must be altered if people are to have any confidence in the system?
    Mr. Portillo: It is terrible that people are being made to pay for the non-payers. That is why there will be no amnesty, and those people will be pursued until the moment that they pay up. It is surprising that some people in Liverpool chose not to pay their community charge, when they were urged not to do so by Labour Members of Parliament? One Member of Parliament there was actually sent to prison for non-payment. Is it any surprise that some people took that example and ran up horrendous debts? There will still be no amnesty.

    Rents-to-Mortgages
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make an announcement on a national scheme for the conversion of council rents to mortgages.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): My right hon. Friend is considering a statutory rents-to-mortgages scheme in the light of the results of the pilot schemes in Basildon and Milton Keynes.
    Mrs. Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that since 1980, 10,075 council tenants in Wolverhampton have become the proud owners of their council houses? Does he recognise that many people want to be proud owners, but cannot afford to buy their council homes outright? They would warmly welcome the opportunity, which they hope

    315
    that the Government will give them, of being able to convert their rents to mortgages. I ask my hon. Friend, please, to give us that opportunity as soon as possible. When he does so, I hope that he will ensure that he legislates to ensure that Labour cannot operate delaying tactics as they have in Wolverhampton. Labour does not want people to own their own homes.
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to her many constituents who are now home owners and thus have the privilege of owning their own homes—a right which would have been denied them if we had listened to the advice of Opposition Members. If we decide to extend the rents-to-mortgages scheme and to make it nationwide, we shall take steps to ensure that no recalcitrant local authority can deny people rights that have been given to them by the House.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that a number of people in the west midlands and elsewhere who took the opportunity of buying their accommodation now find that their homes have been repossessed as a direct result of Government economic policy? The essential need in housing is to provide far more rented accommodation. Before the Minister gives us, once again, the sterile old argument about the number of empty council properties, I point out that the number of empty council properties is far fewer than the number of empty properties owned by the Government.
    Sir George Young: No one in temporary accommodation who sees empty and unused local authority accommodation thinks that that is a sterile argument. On the first point, local authority tenants who bought their homes are among those least likely to have been repossessed. They tend to be people who are used to making regular weekly payments and they have a substantial equity in their homes because of discounts. They are not a significant element among those who have been repossessed. We shall continue to put pressure on local authorities with stock that has been empty for more than a year. We shall persuade them to bring it back into use for the benefit of those in temporary accommodation.
    Mr. Hind: My hon. Friend will be aware that I have often urged him to follow the Basildon project with the Skelmersdale project. Skelmersdale is a new town with many former council houses which would be ideal for conversion from rents to mortgages. When he considers his share of the Conservative party manifesto, will my hon. Friend give a promise to my Skelmersdale council tenants that they will be able to purchase their houses under such a scheme in the future?
    Sir George Young: We are, indeed, reflecting on precisely that proposition. We believe that the tenants about whom my hon. Friend has spoken are responsible people who are capable of taking a mature decision. I was appalled to see that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred to the rents-to-mortgage scheme as a "facile and short-term measure". That is a patronising approach which would deny widening choice to many local authority tenants.
    Mr. Soley: Is not the reality that the scheme is an enormous flop? Is not it true that throughout the United Kingdom, only about 100 such cases have been pursued despite the enormous amount which the Government have
    316
    put into advocating the scheme? Is not the reality that there is a far greater interest at present in a mortgages-to-rents scheme? Does the Minister agree with the figure given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Dispatch Box when he told us that there would be 40,000 mortgage rescues this year? If the Minister does not agree with that figure, will he tell us how long it will take to introduce any rescue schemes? Are we talking about months or years?
    Sir George Young: As to the rents-to-mortgages scheme, 568 people in Milton Keynes and Basildon applied to buy their home under the scheme; and 100 applicants have switched to the right-to-buy scheme. They would not share the hon. Gentleman's view. Labour adopts a dogmatic approach to the rents-to-mortgages scheme, as it did to the right to buy and will abandon it in the same way.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend accept my view that the Labour party would really like tied workers living in tied cottages? Will he confirm that tenants who decide to buy under the provisions of the rents-to-mortgages scheme will pay little more than they do in rent?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. They would pay exactly the same under the rents-to-mortgages scheme as they currently pay in rent—but they would be acquiring their homes, rather than simply being tenants. I could do no better than use the graphic terms in which my hon. Friend described Labour's position. It has a paternalistic approach to local authority tenants. We seek to enfranchise them.

    Environmental Protection Act 1990
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress being made in implementing the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The Environmental Protection Act 1990 has already led to significant improvements in national pollution control, waste disposal, the control of litter and the reorganisation of bodies responsible for the countryside. Progress in all areas is continuing on schedule.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has so far achieved just six prosecutions under integrated pollution control and the 1990 Act? The Minister will remember that in Committee, he regularly boasted about how powerful a piece of legislation the Bill was—saying that it was the most far-reaching legislation in Europe, and so on. After 13 years of Conservative government, it is the only environment Act that we have. It is flimsy legislation. No money was committed to it, only six prosecutions have been brought and fines imposed to date amount to only 13,000. Is not that the true measure of the Act and of the Government's lack of commitment to the environment?
    Mr. Trippier: When the hon. Gentleman sat on the Standing Committee on the Bill he did not vote on any single occasion against the precise measures to which he now refers. There is a major difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself as to whether prosecutions are an

    317
    agency's proof of success. I maintain that the principal force of the 1990 Act is the deterrents that it introduced. Prosecutions are the mark of the failure of a policy, not of its success. The hon. Gentleman has a ghoulish thirst for blood—except, of course, the sight of his own.
    Mr. Squire: Is not my hon. Friend a little surprised that the Opposition seek to raise that point, given that the 1990 Act and other measures demonstrate that every major environmental initiative this century has been implemented by a Conservative Government? Will my hon. Friend emphasise that Labour's only policy on air pollution is to abolish nuclear power and replace it with coal-fired power —the net consequence of which could be only a massive increase in global warming?
    Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is right. On his last point, Labour has manifestly failed to square the circle. While it has a policy such as that to which my hon. Friend referred, it cannot convince the House or anyone else that it is serious about stabilising and reducing carbon dioxide levels. My hon. Friend's first point is valid. Conservative Governments have been responsible for all major environmental legislation. An Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), said at Labour's party conference that Labour introduced the Clean Air Act 1956. It did not. That legislation was introduced by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister explain why, if the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is so wonderful, the Government are being dragged to the European Court for failing to comply with Community legislation on water standards and air pollution control? Is it not a fact that, for all their fine words, the Government's deeds are desperately poor and that the country is looking forward to a change of Government in a month?
    Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman always comes to the House badly briefed. Nothing in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 relates to the European directives to which his question refers. Every member state has either received article 169 letters or is, according to the Commission, in breach of European directives. The case being considered during the next few weeks will be the first alleged breach of an environment directive by this Government in 20 years' membership of the European Community—and I am proud of that.

    Epty Council Properties
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Environment what is the latest figure for the number of council properties left empty by the 10 councils with the most such properties.
    Sir George Young: In the latest housing investment programme returns, the 10 councils reporting the highest percentage of their council house stock empty on 1 April 1991 were Liverpool—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—with 5,733 dwellings; Manchester—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—with 6,042; Salford—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Labour."]—with 2,292; Burnley, 372; Brent—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tory."]—937, but Brent has no overall control; Hackney, 1,998; Tower Hamlets, 1,895; Knowsley, 1,037; Newcastle upon Tyne, 1,886; and Wolverhampton, 1,347.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for those revealing figures, and congratulate him on all his efforts to rehouse the homeless. Is that not in stark contrast to Labour Members who trade on the squalor and misery of people who are not housed? Their friends in the town halls keep people out of homes and use them to trade and to get cheap votes. When will the Opposition tell Labour councils to open those houses, and get the homeless off the streets and into the empty dwellings that those Labour authorities control?
    Sir George Young: There is—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Could hon. Members calm down.
    Sir George Young: There is no way in which I can match my hon. Friend's colourful eloquence. He rightly points out that—apart from Brent, which has no overall control, and Tower Hamlets, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats—the 10 authorities with the highest percentage of empties in their stock are Labour controlled, and about 20,000 properties have been left empty for more than a year. That is an affront to people in temporary accommodation and in housing stress. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. We must reflect on whether further measures might be needed to put extra pressure on authorities to bring properties back into use.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Instead of trying to score cheap points— [Interruption.]—no hon. Member would defend any situation where empty properties are kept unnecessarily empty. We know the Minister to be a reasonable man. Why does he not call in the authorities that he mentioned—there are others—to identify the problems that confront them and which lead to properties being left empty when clearly, a large number of people are waiting to be housed?
    Sir George Young: We are not after cheap points, but cheap accommodation. The hon. Gentleman knows that many local authorities could use quicker reletting procedures and faster procedures for the repair and maintenance of properties to reduce the gap between one tenant leaving and another moving in.
    The Audit Commission has said that if all authorities did as well as the average, significant reductions could be made in the number of families living in temporary accommodation. Many of the voids are in that category not because of a shortage of resources, but because of weak and poor management. I hope that Opposition Members will use their influence with Labour-controlled councils to improve their performance and so put many more such properties back into use.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware of the disgraceful record of Basildon council, which covers part of my constituency, on reletting properties? Is he further aware of the bribe that that council is offering to its tenants in the form of a rent freeze to try to dissuade them from opting for new landlords in Commission for New Towns and council house properties? Will he assure me that he will look into that matter, because Basildon council is simply trying to bribe its tenants before the election?
    Sir George Young: I am sure that the residents of Basildon will see straight through any transparent attempt to buy their votes. Many local authorities, including Basildon, could do better. As I have already said, we will

    319
    see whether any further measures are necessary to reduce the number of properties left empty by local authorities. It is a scandal.
    Mr. George Howarth: When will the Minister own up to the fact that the biggest offender in terms of empty property is his Government, who have 31,000 empty properties throughout the country? Instead of all this fake indignation, when will he own up to the fact that most of the local authorities, including my own of Knowsley, have empty properties because they are being held for improvement under schemes in which the Government are involved after 13 years in which they have neglected to fund local authority and other housing stock? When will the Minister admit that it is him and his Government who are responsible for all the problems, including the appalling homelessness that is subsequently caused?
    Sir George Young: Most Government property is owned by the Ministry of Defence which is bringing back families from Germany and other parts of the world and those properties are needed for them. There is no way in which one can compare properties built by the MOD for service men with the scandalous performance of a number of local authorities. Such comparison cannot justify that performance—nothing can justify leaving 20,000 properties empty for more than a year. There is no advantage to be gained by Opposition Members seeking to defend the indefensible.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the availability of council house sales' receipts to repay debt and to provide additional houses to rent.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): At 1 April 1991, local authorities had unspent housing capital receipts of £700 million. In addition they held approximately £5·1 billion from all capital receipts and set-aside as provision for debt repayment under the new capital finance system. Since 1985–86 alone, total capital public expenditure on social housing provision has been £18·3 billion.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I wonder whether a new radical approach should be taken to the receipts from council house sales. Should councils be asked to relieve the public sector borrowing requirement of that burden of long-term debt by transferring it and their balances to housing associations? In that way housing associations could immediately buy up many of the surplus properties that are currently available on the housing market. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that would provide low-cost homes, a welcome boost to the housing market and reduce housing benefits?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend's heart is in the right place, but I do not believe that his precise proposal would have the effect that he has in mind. Because of the flow of capital receipts we have been able to increase the cash spent on social housing, not least through the agency to which my hon. Friend referred, the Housing Corporation, whose budget is shortly to rise to £2 billion a year.
    Mr. Nellist: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the principle that the Government applied in cancelling £14·5 billion worth of debt for all nationalised industries before privatisation were applied to local authorities, there would be little debt left to repay? If he is really concerned to increase the number of homes available to rent, why will he not recognise that of the 700,000 empty properties, 100,000 are in the council sector and 600,000 are privately owned? Why not deal with the beam instead of for ever going on about the mote?
    Mr. Hesletine: The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of the privately rented sector. It is probably true to say that his party did more decade after decade to destroy the availability of properties in the private rented sector—to the impoverishment of some of the most needy sectors of society.

    Area Cost Adjustment
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider the abolition of the area cost adjustment.
    Mr. Portillo: It is important that standard spending assessments should recognise that pay and the costs of recruiting and retaining staff are substantially higher in some areas than in others. That is the purpose of the area cost adjustment.
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is much disquiet in Warwickshire and elsewhere about the standard spending assessment and the result of the revenue support grant—[Interruption.] At least I get support on some occasions from Labour Members. The area cost adjustment exacerbates that position. My hon. Friend will also be aware that a number of counties are now calling for the abolition of the area cost adjustment. Will he give careful consideration to the possibility of abolishing that unneeded and unnecessary measure?
    Mr. Portillo: I do not think it would be reasonable to pretend that the cost of paying people, recruiting them and retaining them is the same in the south-east as in other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be unfair to pretend that, but I do not want my hon. Friend to be carried away by the importance of it. In a county such as Hampshire, recognising the extra costs, we give an extra 5 per cent. for teachers' pay, so the differential between Hampshire and my hon. Friend's county is only 5 per cent.
    Mr. Flynn: A consequence of the area cost adjustment is to elevate finance to be the supreme consideration. Is the Minister aware that part of the result is that in my constituency today 14 classrooms have been closed in Bassaleg school? Parents were told last night that their children should not come to school due to the appalling standard of cleanliness resulting from the employment of contract cleaners. That state of affairs never occurred under the previous system. What do the Government intend to do about it?
    Mr. Portillo: Not only have we enormously increased the standard to which schools and public buildings are cleaned, as a result of compulsory competitive tendering, but we have saved ratepayers and community charge payers huge amounts of money. It is disgraceful that the Labour party, in hock to the trade unions, is now

    321
    threatening to sweep away compulsory competitive tendering, irrespective of the cost and the effect on services to the customer.

    Noise Pollution
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward further measures to assist the police, local authorities and individuals in combating noise pollution.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): My Department commissioned an independent review of noise control policy in 1990 and has already taken action on more than half the recommendations.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that a curse of modern urban living is musical mega-decibels in the night? Hitherto, police and local authorities thought that they did not have power to deal with it adequately. Now that it has been shown in Liverpool that there are powers to confiscate offending equipment—as there always have been in Scotland—may I ask my hon. Friend to draw those powers to the attention of local authorities—and, through the Home Office, the police—so that the public may be protected from this menace?
    Mr. Baldry: There has been considerable comment in recent months about the need for environmental health officers to have power temporarily to remove equipment. We have advised environmental health officers that they already have power under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 temporarily to remove equipment such as audio equipment to ensure that a noise abatement notice is complied with. The courts have recently demonstrated the existence and effectiveness of that power. Any environmental health officer who is in doubt about the existence of that power should examine schedule 3 to the 1990 Act, where it is clearly set out.
    Mr. Haynes: Mr. Speaker, Sir, when we had a Greater London Council, the noise of lorries in London was controlled. Is the Minister aware that when I lie in my flat at night I cannot sleep for noise? I need to be fit so that I can stay awake in that Committee upstairs. Will the Minister do something about it?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman is conversant with the problem of noise pollution in every way. He will be glad to know that we have set up a noise review working party and that one of the issues that it has been considering is traffic noise and how to deal with it more effectively.

    Diesel Fuel
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he proposes to take to encourage the use of low-sulphur diesel fuel.
    Mr. Baldry: The Government welcome the European Commission's draft directive setting new limits for the sulphur content of diesel fuel and other gasoil. Those are a necessary complement to last year's directive on emission standards for heavy duty diesel vehicles. We are working for resolution of outstanding points of technical detail with a view to early adoption by the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will know of the widespread success of his unleaded petrol campaign, which has persuaded motorists to use a more environmentally acceptable fuel. Is he aware that 10 per cent. of cars purchased these days run on diesel, and that there is widespread concern that the fuel used has a heavy sulphur content? The European Commission wants that content to be reduced to a very small amount by 1995–96. Will my hon. Friend speak to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor about introducing financial incentives similar to those for unleaded fuel so as to encourage speedier acceptance of a lower-sulphur fuel?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fiscal incentives for use of unleaded petrol have been a great success. As my hon. Friend knows, fiscal matters are for our right hon. Friend the Chancellor. However, my hon. Friend's suggestion envisages simultaneous availability on the market of two different grades of diesel, which would present difficulties in terms of separate pumps, separate distribution systems, and so on. Moreover, it would soon become redundant when the low sulphur standard becomes mandatory for all diesel. We are seeking to resolve a similar difficulty with the Commission's proposals.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the sulphur monoxide consequencies, have the Government taken into account the latest findings from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in relation to the ozone layer, and the need for urgent measures to be taken into account in view of this desperately dangerous and cancer-giving situation?
    Mr. Baldry: The Government have been at the forefront in calling on our European partners to take action to reduce chlorofluorocarbons by 1995. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will no doubt have something to say about that to European Community colleagues this weekend.
    Mr. Paice: Will my hon. Friend look at the work being done in Austria and France to make an eco-friendly diesel fuel from oilseed rape and other oil crops? Will he particularly look at what the French are doing in terms of tax concessions to encourage the viability of such an environmentally friendly fuel, and will he perhaps have a word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor on that subject?
    Mr. Baldry: In that area, as in so many, enhancing environmental improvements will mean considerable scope for new environmental technology. The good example that my hon. Friend gives shows that, in pursuit of higher environmental standards, new technology is coming forward. I shall certainly look with interest at the specific matters to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What is the Government's general policy in relation to fuel and environmental protection? Given that the chairman of the Conservative party and the Secretary of State for Energy have accepted, on behalf of the Conservative party, that petrol prices will have to rise, do the Government wish to take action before Europe imposes its own regime on us, or will they wait for Europe? What increases in fuel prices does the Conservative party envisage in the next 10 years?
    Mr. Baldry: It is a great pity that not one member of the Liberal Democratic party could be bothered to attend the European Standing Committee this morning, where we debated those matters for nearly two and a half hours. Had they bothered to look in on that Standing Committee, they would have heard me make it clear that the Government will be working in co-operation with our European Community colleagues to find a way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions effectively. We have said that we recognise that high energy prices may have to play a part in a strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It is important, however, to recognise that this is a global problem which requires a global solution. Perversely, unilateral action, even by the European Community, could have the effect of increasing carbon dioxide emissions.

    Air Quality
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken by his Department to monitor air quality in London; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: My Department already spends more than £4 million annually on monitoring air quality, particularly in London, and making the information available to the general public and the media. We are extending the range and coverage of our urban air quality monitoring network in the coming years, and an additional monitoring site came into operation in central London last month.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that many people in London are deeply disturbed by the increasing incidence of asthma among children, but that the Minister for Health has been unable to give figures relating to the level of asthma suffering in London as a result of air pollution, which is caused mainly by vehicles? In December, air quality levels were the worst for 11 years, with carbon monoxide at 13·3 parts per million, and nitrogen dioxide at 243 parts per billion? Does he agree that the serious deterioration of air quality in London arises mainly from increasing vehicle movements and that the best course would therefore be to improve public transport, reduce the number of cars going through London and ensure cleaner fuels and cleaner burn to preserve the health of our children, who are suffering grievously because of the increasing levels of pollution in central London?
    Mr. Trippier: No one has a monopoly of concern about this issue. Neither is the problem confined to London. As two members of my family suffer quite badly from asthma —they suffered particularly when we had low-level ozone problems last summer—I am well aware of the situation. I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House some comfort by saying that over the next two years things will change dramatically. By the end of this year, the fitting of catalysts to new cars will be mandatory. Then there are the new European Community standards for heavy diesel vehicles. The new MOT exhaust emissions test, which was introduced only a few months ago, will also play a significant part in cleaning up the air. In addition, there are traffic management measures, including red routes, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. The Environmental
    324
    Protection Act 1990, too, has raised the standards of air pollution control. The combination of those measures will improve the situation dramatically.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not aircraft noise the worst form of air pollution in London? Does the Minister agree that, as the Government have curbed night flights, refused planning permission for a heliport at Cannon Street in the City, stopped the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link and refused planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow, they are second to none in protecting people from the blight and the curse of aircraft noise?
    Mr. Trippier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I add only that a consultation paper on aircraft noise, including the noise caused by leisure flying, has been released. That paper is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and I have no doubt that when it has gone out we shall receive positive comments and shall act accordingly.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the positive steps that the Minister says have been taken, and we are glad to hear of the amount of money being spent on monitoring. What specific lessons have been learnt which could result in a reduction of air pollution? I am thinking, for example, of the city of Belfast and other urban areas throughout Northern Ireland which in the past year have suffered more than ever from air pollution.
    Mr. Trippier: The most important outcome of the increased use of monitoring equipment is that people who suffer from respiratory diseases can be alerted to the possibility of a problem arising within the following 24 hours. I have already indicated that, as members of my family suffer from asthma, I am aware that it is absolutely essential to have such information. The advice provided by the Department of Health is very good. The Department advises people who suffer from respiratory diseases to take minimum exercise and, preferably, to stay indoors. That is the purpose of the monitoring equipment. We have learnt that when there is protracted sunlight during the summer months the low-level ozone problem is activated and aggravated, causing massive difficulty for those who suffer from respiratory diseases. All the measures that I catalogued earlier will help to reduce vehicle emissions —the principal cause of bad air.

    Geen Belts
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider the need for additional regulations to enhance the ecological protection of the environment for green belt areas of open space in the outer London boroughs.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): We will shortly issue a draft planning policy guidance note on nature conservation which will expand and update our existing policies to promote nature conservation in all areas, including the green belts.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for being part of the Government who have enhanced and protected green belt districts more robustly than any other Government of the post-war period. I believe that total green belt space has doubled since 1979. I particularly thank my hon. Friend

    325
    and his colleagues for recently calling in the Hillside and Brookshill development in my district so as to protect still further the local green belt land. Is my hon. Friend aware that without fresh primary legislation it is possible to require owners of green belt land to ensure that it is maintained properly and not just left undeveloped?
    Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reinforce the Government's commitment to protect green belt districts. We have been robust in dealing with planning applications in green belt areas, and we are wholly committed to the five objectives of the green belt. As my hon. Friend said, we have substantially increased the area covered by green belt in this country, and I welcome this chance to make absolutely clear to any planning applicants thinking of trying to develop green belt land that we shall stand by our commitments.

    English Heritage
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when county hall and Battersea power station were last inspected by English Heritage as his advisers on historic buildings matters.
    Mr. Yeo: Both buildings were last inspected by English Heritage on Thursday 13 February.
    Mr. Banks: How very convenient! Is it not disgraceful that two of London's most conspicuous and well-known landmarks—county hall and Battersea power station—stand empty, forlorn and in an increasingly derelict state? Does the Minister recall that a shyster developer was going to turn Battersea power station into a theme park? The building now stands in grave danger from the weather, derelict and in ruins. Is it not a fitting monument to 13 years of shyster Tory Government?
    Mr. Yeo: The only thing that stands between county hall being put to good use is the Labour-controlled Lambeth borough council, which is squandering charge payers' money on increasingly desperate but unsuccessful attempts to prevent the sale of county hall and its productive use for hotel and residential accommodation. The consequence of those legal manoeuvres is to deny other London boroughs a massive capital receipt which could have been put to good use on behalf of charge payers. That attitude exposes the fact that Labour's posture on capital receipts is totally fraudulent. If the Labour party were in power, there would be no capital receipts. The hon. Gentleman's question was interesting in that it linked county hall and Battersea power station, making it clear that the Labour party's plans for a reborn Greater London council are not the reassuring slim-line version that Labour spokesmen have been peddling. The Labour party plans a vast and sprawling bureaucracy which will need not just county hall, but Battersea power station, to house the thousands of officials required to carry out the wishes of Labour's public sector trade union paymasters.
    Mr. Bowis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Member representing Battersea has kept in regular touch with English Heritage, from which he has received confirmation that everything that needs to be done to protect that building has been done? English Heritage pays tribute to the work of Wandsworth borough council in ensuring that, if the owner of the building has not done the work,
    326
    the council has done it and billed the owner. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to English Heritage and to Wandsworth council for protecting that building?
    Mr. Yeo: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for his interest in the matter. It is true that English Heritage has carried out frequent monitoring. Both that institution and Wandsworth borough council have demonstrated their concern about the fabric of Battersea power station and have stepped in from time to time to ensure that, while the present owner obtains the refinancing required, essential works are carried out to prevent the building's condition from deteriorating. The excellent work by Wandsworth borough council and by my hon. Friend will be rewarded, as the key to the increased majority in Parliament that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will secure later this year lies in the fact that many London Labour-held marginals will fall as a result of the lingering effect of the loony London Labour party.
    Mr. Gould: How can the Minister justify the attempt to sell off into the private sector, just a matter of weeks before a general election, what most Londoners rightly regard as the proper seat of London's government? Is that not merely a last act of spite by a Government who still bear a grudge against London? Will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the chairman of the Tory party that a citywide administration is needed for London? If he does agree, what form should it take?
    Mr. Yeo: The verdict of Londoners on whether London wants a Labour-led Greater London council reborn will be seen when we judge the results of the general election in the London constituencies. I am confident that those results will pass a crystal clear judgment that people are afraid of the Labour party in London. They can see what it is like in Lambeth, in Southwark, in Hackney and elsewhere. They will further pass judgment that the Government want to see that enormous capital asset across the river sold for hotel or residential accommodation, and a huge capital receipt—probably more than £100 million—distributed to the old London boroughs for productive use in their areas. If the Labour party continues to promote the idea that London wants a new Greater London authority, with powers over the police—a policy which strikes terror into the heart of every law-abiding citizen in the capital—it will get its come-uppance when the general election comes.

    Housing Associations
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in developing the role of housing associations.
    Sir George Young: Housing associations are now the main providers of new subsidised housing. Government support for the Housing Corporation's approved development programme is set to increase from £1·6 billion this year to more than £2 billion in 1993–94. Next year, the corporation will approve more than 50,000 new homes—more than 25 per cent. more than this year and three times as many as in 1990–91.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am grateful for the progress indicated in that reply. My hon. Friend knows of my great interest in further improving the resources available for housing associations. Will my hon. Friend—with his hon. Friend

    327
    the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, with whom I have corresponded on the matter—undertake to consider further how a housing association might help with the difficult and complex problem faced by owner-occupiers in Galmington in Taunton, whose homes were built in a non-traditional manner just after the war and who cannot now sell those homes? As the owners are aging, they are facing considerable problems.
    Sir George Young: I am distressed to hear of the problems facing owner-occupiers in the area referred to by my hon. Friend. The housing defects legislation was introduced to try to tackle those problems. I shall see whether further steps can be taken to remove the uncertaintly hanging over my hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. Trimble: One welcomes the provision that housing associations can make, and I speak as a member of the management committee of a housing association. Nevertheless, one has one reservation about making housing associations the main vehicle for the provision of social housing: a housing association is not accountable in the same way as a local authority to the people for whom it is making the provision—that is, of course, in those areas where local authorities have a housing function.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. In England, we have been taking steps through the Housing Corporation to increase the accountability of housing associations to their tenants by, for example, promoting tenant membership of management committees, and by requiring management committees to consult much more effectively. One could develop the argument that a well-run housing association, with tenants on the board and with regular consultation, might be more accountable than a local authority for which there was a vote only every four years and which tended to ignore the views of tenants.
    Mr. Wolfson: I support strongly the development of housing associations in view of my experience with my local authority in Sevenoaks, which successfully sold the whole of its housing stock to West Kent housing association. Nevertheless, is my hon. Friend the Minister not concerned about the growth in size of housing associations, which might make it more difficult to maintain the personal contact with tenants which is an important aspect of good housing management?
    Sir George Young: Again, my hon. Friend raises a very valid point. The housing association movement has a tradition of accountability and good local performance. If a housing association becomes too big, it loses those inbuilt advantages. Of course we have this matter under review. The Housing Corporation is particularly anxious to ensure that the smaller and medium-sized housing associations get an adequate share of the growing resources provided by the Housing Corporation so that the more traditional associations can continue to provide the new homes and local management to which my hon. Friend paid tribute.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister must be aware of the shortage of affordable housing in villages and towns in rural areas, with the result that young people have to leave those areas to find suitable accommodation. The Housing Corporation cannot meet the demand in the rural areas.
    328
    What is the Minister doing about that? Will he consider allowing local authorities to build houses in rural areas for the people who live there and who need the houses now?
    Sir George Young: The Government have taken a number of steps to promote the provision of affordable homes for exactly the people whom the hon. Gentleman mentions. We have two sets of rural initiatives—one through the Housing Corporation and one through local authorities. Increasingly, however, we are using the planning system to generate the affordable homes that are needed.
    The hon. Gentleman will have read and re-read circular 7/91 which contains the exceptions policy, allowing homes to be provided on sites not normally designated as residential so long as they are aimed at local people. He will also be aware that the planning system can now be used to require a developer to make provision for a percentage of homes specifically for young people who cannot afford to buy on the open market. We are conscious of the issue and we have developed policies which address it head-on.

    Community Charge
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which councils have the lowest level of community charge collection.
    Mr. Portillo: For the first year of the community charge, I believe that the authorities with the lowest collection rates are Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Liverpool, Newham, Southampton, Birmingham, Waltham Forest, Bristol and Greenwich. We have had no return from Manchester.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not the most significant point about that list the fact that all the authorities listed are Labour controlled? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not surprising, since so many Labour councillors backed the "won't pay, can't pay" campaign? As a result, there are large bills to be paid—bills which are being passed on to ordinary community charge payers. Is that fair?
    Mr. Portillo: Of course it is not fair. The collection rate in my hon. Friend's area is 94 per cent., which shows that it can be done. There is a very strong link between the list that I have read out and the authorities whose councillors advocated non-payment—Lambeth, for instance, whose councillors were so bad that even the Labour party had to remove them from office. If the Labour party did not want us to vote for its councillors, what confidence can we have in the people that it puts up for election?
    Another strong link is that the areas of inefficiency and non-collection are the very areas where the Conservatives have been scoring the most remarkable by-election victories in terms of council seats.
    Mr. Blunkett: Does the Minister agree that the performance of Labour councils attempting to collect the uncollectable in the face of the unspeakable is responsible for this dilemma? A total of 172,000 people registered for poll tax payment in Lambeth, where 68,000 summonses and 50,000 liability orders have been issued. In Islington, 127,000 people registered, and there have been 75,000 summonses and a staggering 70,000 liability orders. Does the Minister agree that he and his colleagues are responsible, first, for refusing to take action to clear up the

    329
    fiasco on the issue of computer records being used, secondly for refusing to abolish the 20 per cent. contribution rule for the poorest in the community and, thirdly, for devising and implementing the wretched tax in the first place?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is being preposterous. The figures that I read out are for the first year. The computer evidence problem has only just arisen. The condemnation of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has read out is that in those boroughs we need never have had so many liability orders or so many people taken to the courts or threatened with prison if they had not been misled by Labour Members of Parliament and councillors into running up enormous debts. Now that those people have run up those enormous debts, where are the Labour Members of Parliament who led them into that position? They have fled the field and left their constituents in the lurch.

    Derbyshire County Council
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the numbers of people employed by Derbyshire county council; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Key: Staff employed by Derbyshire county council have increased by 22 per cent. in the past 10 years—from around 38,500 people in 1981 to nearly 47,000 people in 1991. If spending and the community charge are to be kept at acceptable levels, staff numbers have to be kept under better control than that.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that while Derbyshire county council's policies have led to the redundancies of hundreds of teachers recently, and while Derbyshire is the only county in England to have fewer policemen than 10 years ago, none the less the county council's job creation priorities have managed to find no fewer than three posts at £40,000 per annum for former Labour councillors and Members of Parliament, the council leader has fitted himself up with a job at an annual equivalent salary of £40,000, the leader of the Derbyshire
    330
    Labour party—one David Skinner—has been given a job as a minder to Japanese business men despite being kicked out of the council for corruption 15 years ago, and his wife has been given a job at £23,000 per annum in the council's bloated publicity department? Are those the candy-floss, Mickey Mouse jobs that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) goes on about so much, or are those people just sponging off the backs of the poll tax payers?
    Mr. Key: Anyone who wants to see a Labour government in action should look at Derbyshire. Talking of phoney jobs, the biggest generator of phoney jobs will be Labour's con trick of creating regional parliaments full of fully salaried Members of Parliament and all their hangers-on without making a ha'porth of difference to the quality of services for local people.
    Mr. Skinner: That millionaire mammy's boy—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not wholly unparliamentary.
    Mr. Skinner: That millionaire mammy's boy has some cheek to talk about families. My brother was sacked by a Tory council many years ago in Derbyshire because he had the guts to take it on, and he has nothing to apologise for. Neither has Derbyshire county council which, unlike many Tory councils, has kept school meal prices down to the lowest in Britain and refused to sack workers. In 1985, its Labour majority was bigger than that of the Tories and the people of Derbyshire re-elected it in 1989: they are satisfied with Derbyshire county council's policies, and when we have the general election they will kick out the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), the man with the Pampers on.
    Mr. Key: I think that we understand why so many Labour seats in Derbyshire are at risk in the coming election, and I am not surprised. This is the authority which has not increased school meal prices for 11 years, since 1981; it has been expelled from the Museums Association for selling pictures and using the money for non-museum purposes—and so on, and so on, and so on. The electorate will judge it.

Defence Equipment
3.32 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a number of new equipment projects for the armed forces.
In my statement last week on amphibious forces, I said that a cornerstone of our policy in developing "smaller but better" armed forces was the enhancement of flexibility and mobility. For the Royal Air Force, one of the proven methods of achieving this—demonstrated both during the Falklands conflict and more recently in the liberation of Kuwait—is air-to-air refuelling. It became clear after the Falklands conflict that an increase in the RAF's tanker strength was vital, and a programme was set in train to augment and eventually replace the Victor tanker fleet. So far, nine VC10s and six Tristars have been added to the RAF tanker fleet, and a further 13 VC10 conversions are now in progress.
I am now pleased to announce that we have decided to award a contract to British Aerospace to give the remaining five VC10 transport aircraft a tanker capability. The work is expected to be done at BAe's Filton site, with significant elements sub-contracted to Flight Refuelling at Hurn.
The existing programme already provided the RAF with a capability in this area greater than that of any of our European allies. These additional aircraft will give the RAF the reach and flexibility that it needs to meet the challenges and uncertainties of the future.
The effectiveness of air power is determined not only by the performance of the aircraft but by their ability to defend themselves and suppress enemy air defences in a hostile environment. To those ends, we have decided to order a new defensive aids system for the Tornado F3 air defence variant, combining chaff and flares. Contract negotiations are under way with BAe, which, as prime contractor, will be responsible for system integration. The flare dispensers and system control equipment have been designed, and will be supplied, by Vinten Military Systems Ltd. of Bury St Edmunds.
Additionally, we intend to order from British Aerospace, subject to the agreement of satisfactory contract terms, a further batch of air-launched anti-radar missiles to replenish stocks expended during the Gulf war. Among the sub-contractors that will benefit from this order are Marconi Defence Systems of Portsmouth; Lucas Aerospace in Bradford; Irving of Letchworth; and Thorn EMI of Hayes.
The Gulf war also re-emphasised how essential good communications are to the success of military operations. We have decided to extend the successful Skynet 4 satellite communications programme. The three satellites currently in operation are expected to approach the end of their orbit life by 1997, and a further batch of new satellites will be ordered for launch in that year. That will extend the life of our current communications satellite system into the next century. A firm price project definition phase for Skynet 4, stage 2, will be conducted by the team responsible for the stage 1 satellites—British Aerospace Space Systems at Stevenage as prime contractor, with Matra Marconi Space at Portsmouth as the major sub-contractor.
332
We intend, subject to the agreement of acceptable contractual terms, to place a contract with Westland to convert the Royal Navy's Lynx mark 3 helicopter to the more capable mark 8 standard. The core of the Lynx mark 8 update will be a central tactical system, which has been developed by Racal Avionics in Raynes Park. The contract will provide for the conversion of seven airframes to the mark 8 standard, and the supply of tooling and modification kits to enable conversions of further aircraft to be undertaken by the Royal Navy.
The House will recall that we have been considering the purchase of additional Sea King for the search-and-rescue role. I am pleased to announce that we intend to order a further six Sea King helicopters and a Sea King simulator for the Royal Air Force. That will enable us to replace aging United Kingdom-based Wessex in the search-andrescue role with this longer-range and generally more capable helicopter. In line with our policy of moving to tauter contractual conditions for non-competitive procurement, the contract with Westland for the helicopters will be subject to prior agreement of an acceptable firm price. Competitive tenders will be invited for the simulator.
Finally, I can confirm to the House our plans for further trainer aircraft for the Harrier force. Subject to the agreement of satisfactory contractual terms with British Aerospace, we intend to purchase 13 new Harrier T10 two-seater trainers for the RAF, and to convert five Harrier T4 aircraft to the more capable T8 standard for the Royal Navy.
The total value of these orders for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy will be some £500 million. The proposals are within our existing defence expenditure plans, and provide yet further demonstration of the Government's firm commitment to ensuring that the armed forces, although smaller in overall numbers, will be better equipped than ever before.
Dr. John Reid: I know that the Minister will not think me churlish if I merely note that this is the second time in two weeks that some games have been played with defence statements. The Minister will recall that on the first occasion the title of the statement bore absolutely no relation to the content. Today, as late as 2 o'clock this afternoon, the Minister's office was prepared to say only that the equipment mentioned would be of an aerial nature. That would be perfectly acceptable were it not for the fact that I was able to discover an hour earlier from non-governmental sources exactly the type and amount of equipment which would be mentioned in the statement. It is a sad day when the Opposition have to run their own military intelligence in order to be able to respond to a statement.
As for the statement itself, we welcome the Government's long overdue steps on some of the issues, although we note that the timing is no coincidence because the Government have but three weeks to go. I note too the many areas which the statement fails to cover.
The replacement of the six elderly Wessex search-and-rescue helicopters is long overdue. Will the Minister confirm that what he has announced today is not an order but, if I read the statement correctly, an intention to order at some unspecified date in the future? When will he announce the replacement order for the other 44 Wessex helicopters and the 42 Puma helicopters, given the pressing need to make our armed forces more mobile?

333
The replacement orders for air-launched anti-radar missiles are also welcome and were anticipated as a result of the Gulf conflict. Why has the Minister taken so long to replace them, and does he intend also to replace all of the equipment used in the Gulf?
The announcement on Lynx helicopters is similarly welcome, but why did the Minister not provide this information when the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) who asked him as far back as 23 May last year about plans to extend the life of the Lynx helicopters?
It was noticeable that, despite the fact that the Government wish to use the statement as an electoral weapon, all the announcements are for replacements. There are no new decisions and no new orders in any of the substantial and difficult areas. Has not the Government's continued dithering on the question of ASRAAM led to a withdrawal of our European partners and to a loss of interest by the United States? That has not only deprived British industry of much needed business but posed a threat to thousands of jobs in Bristol and Stevenage. It has also created uncertainty within the Royal Air Force itself about a replacement for Sidewinder. Why have the Government allowed that uncertainty to persist, and why have they taken so long to reach a decision? When do they intend to make an announcement on ASRAAM?
Will the Minister say what progress has been made on another substantial issue—the development of a stand-off runway denial weapon to replace the JP233 which was mentioned during the RAF debate? Have any studies been launched, and is any multinational collaboration envisaged?
What progress has been made on the substantial issue of the European fighter aircraft programme? Again, thousands of jobs in Warton, near Preston, are dependent on that decision. If the Government wish to use defence procurement as an electoral issue, we shall do likewise, because many decisions which they have refused to make affect thousands of jobs throughout the country, including those near Preston.
When will the Minister order the auxiliary oil replenishment vessel which will affect workers in Wallsend and Tynemouth?
Those questions must be answered. I am sure that the Minister will resist the temptation to produce a litany of lies about Labour's defence policy. [Interruption.] I am sure that he will avoid that temptation. Lest he be even tempted to do so, I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan told the House on 14 October 1991. He said that the 1991 Labour party conference unanimously passed the following resolution:
"'The next Labour government will make a thorough assessment of the new and changing conditions and relationships in Europe, the Soviet Union and the wider world.'"—[official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 70.]
The next Labour Government will spend what is required properly to defend and ensure the security of the United Kingdom. As of today, that Labour Government is only eight weeks away.
Mr. Clark: I understand why the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has very little to say—he wastes a lot of the House's time complaining about the niceties of the title of the statement. If he feels that he has been affronted in any way, I of course apologise.
It is interesting that the Labour party has now moved one stage further on from endorsing our programme, and
334
is asking us why we took so long to reach a decision. I welcome that enthusiasm too, although I realise that every fresh endorsement given by the Opposition Front Bench further forecloses the options of the unfortunate right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who will find that he is committed to high defence expenditure. As we all know, he will fall back on precisely what we have all been predicting—he will increase taxes. No matter how much he denies it, that is what he will do.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North alleged that the statement concerned only replacement equipment. He cannot have been listening. The enhancement of the Skynet communication is new, as is the enhancement of the tanker and the flight refuelling equipment. The latter is unprecedented, and gives the Royal Air Force a greatly extended reach and capability. The purchase of Sea King, too, is new. It is a new aircraft, and it is very welcome.
I agree that ASRAAM is an important system, and a decision will be taken as soon as possible. I hope to make an announcement at some point in the future.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I had better say now that there is a heavy demand to speak in the subsequent debate—indeed, I shall have to impose a 10-minute limit. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue until 4.15. Then we have a ten-minute Bill, and then we shall move on to the main debate.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is it not significant that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said not a word to congratulate my right hon. Friend on these important orders? Is that not revealing about the Labour party's attitude to orders for defence equipment?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the equipment for Tornado to which he referred will be made at Warton —or, at least, in Lancashire? Will he also confirm that the Government are pressing ahead with their efforts to sell more military aircraft overseas, to which Labour Members are, at best, lukewarm, and to which many are downright hostile?
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; he is right. I know that it is a source of embarrassment for the Labour party, which never welcomes good news, to hear of £500 million-worth of orders going to the defence industry. It has to find fault with such news and pick holes in it.
I confirm what my right hon. Friend said about the sourcing of the equipment for Tornado, with the exception of the chaff dispenser, which will be made by Bofors of Sweden.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the terms of the Minister's statement, especially in relation to the enhancement of the capability of the Tornado F3, two squadrons of which are stationed at RAF Leuchars, in my constituency. In the light of what the Minister said about helicopters, will he confirm that the Government do not intend to contractorise the military search-and-rescue capability? In particular, can he confirm that such a capability will be retained at RAF Leuchars, albeit using the Sea King rather than the Wessex, as he said in his statement?
Mr. Clark: Yes, I can confirm that we have no intention of contractorising search-and-air rescue. In any case, in combat conditions, in wartime, the military requirement would not effectively be subject to contractorisation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Leuchars. No decision has yet been made on the basing of the aircraft; that is an entirely separate issue from their procurement.
Mr. Robert Adley: Does my right hon. Friend recall the happy day that he and I spent at Flight Refuelling, in my constituency, some time ago? Will he accept not only the congratulations but the thanks of the management and work force of that company for his recognition today of their skill and the good work that they perform?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that the company's hangar, which he opened, was built by Reids of Christchurch, in my constituency, that the Schlumberger computer factory in my constituency substantially increased its profits in 1991, that School Book Fairs has moved to larger premises twice in the past three years, and that Revvo Castors has just won the biggest single contract in its history? Does that not represent a combination of the Government rewarding success, and good management and dedicated work forces earning the rewards that they deserve?
Mr. Clark: Yes, of course. My hon. Friend forgot to mention the dedicated and assiduous lobbying by the Member of Parliament which, I have no doubt, contributed to the outcome. I well recall that day, and I was most impressed by the quality of Flight Refuelling. I am sure that the greatly extended contract it has with the Ministry reflects that.
Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not dissent from the need for various items of equipment to be purchased and for other items to be enhanced. However, does the Minister realise that we discern from his statement that many of the contracts will be distributed to areas of marked political marginality? Will the contracts that are not to be devoted to such areas be delayed unduly as a consequence of the approaching election?
Over what period will the contracts and expenditure run? I ask that not least because the expenditure is substantial. There are also residual fears that material and equipment are being organised while there may be cause for anxiety about the capacity of the armed forces, especially the Air Force, to maintain their essential training purpose.
Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman does no justice to our Procurement Executive. We place contracts on the basis not of the marginality of a constituency, but of the capability, record and competence of the companies concerned. The British defence industry is fortunate in being so rich in talent and capability. If the hon. Gentleman looks at where most of the contracts have been placed—we have not yet heard from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I do not know whether we shall—
Mr. Bob Cryer: You will.
Mr. Clark: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will disclose to us whether he is concerned with the marginality of his seat.
I remind the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) of the three type 23 frigates which came from
336
constituencies that, optimistic though I am about the result of the general election, are not likely to return a Conservative Member of Parliament.
Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am delighted by the very large new defence orders which will cover a great deal of the United Kingdom? May I press him a little further on Leuchars and on the order for new helicopters? Will they be stationed there for search and rescue? In Scotland, there is very high regard for the skill and airmanship of the air crew in the helicopter squadron. We want the helicopters to be stationed near the mountains and the hostile seas of the north. I hope that some of the helicopters will go there.
Mr. Clark: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. It is an important subject which must be considered separately from the decision to purchase the helicopters which will greatly enhance the capability, as I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes.
Mr. Cryer: When the stocks of ALARM are replenished, what will happen to the jobs in Bradford and elsewhere which were listed in the statement? Is it not time that the Ministry of Defence and the Government as a whole recognised the importance of public expenditure in creating jobs? Will the Ministry of Defence work with the other Departments to produce a planned changeover from military expenditure, which is of finite and limited capacity, to civilian expenditure so that, for example, we could compete in world markets for aircraft instead of relying for the retention of high quality jobs, such as those in Bradford, on military expenditure with its limited potential for sustaining jobs? It is time that the Minister stopped sneering at the idea of changing from military to peaceful purposes. The whole world will do it, and it is time that he caught up.
Mr. Clark: I am not sneering at the idea. I simply say that the hon. Gentleman has in his constituency a very good factory which makes very capable equipment. The hon. Gentleman returns frequently on the Floor of the House to his diversification plans. He seeks to set up some kind of fund and to put in place some busybodies and officials who tell factories what to make, and who interpret the market by goodness knows what criteria. Such people would generally divert the factories from making useful and vital defence equipment to making, what—buckets with holes in them? I do not know what the hon. Gentleman proposes.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement which fulfils the Government's pledges about appropriate adaptability for our future defence needs. Does he agree that the award of the contract to Racal Avionics, in my constituency, has nothing to do with electoral considerations, as Opposition Members have claimed? It merely reflects the expertise of that company and shows that the company is a worldwide leader. It will open the way to further contracts to export markets throughout the world.
Mr. Clark: That is absolutely right. It is an outstanding company. Our endorsement of its capabilities for our own orders will, I hope, also open the export market for which it has considerable potential.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Minister confirm that what he has announced is within the

337
existing procurement budget for his Ministry and that over the years that budget will decline? Could he give us some idea how many jobs are likely to be created by the expenditure of the £500 million and what proportion of those jobs will be in Scotland? As he will know, a report commissioned by Scottish Enterprise on defence in Scotland draws certain conclusions, including in particular that the number of defence jobs in Scotland will diminish in the next five to 10 years. What action does the Minister propose to take to arrest that decline and transfer some of the jobs to civilian needs?
Mr. Clark: I do not wish to give the hon. Gentleman precise figures on the breakdown between the two countries. However, I am ready to enter into correspondence with him. In doing so, I should like to ask him about his party's attitude to defence jobs in Scotland. It has some pretty peculiar standpoints on defence in general. I should like to know whether there is any consistency between being ready to provide equipment for Her Majesty's armed forces and some of the eccentricities of the hon. Gentleman's party. It would be an interesting correspondence and I look forward to it developing.
Mr. Michael Stern: As my right hon. Friend is aware, many aspects of his statement will be welcomed throughout the west country, which remains heavily defence industry dependent. Does he agree that, with many of the orders which affect British Aerospace not only in my constituency but throughout the country, he has built on the proven expertise in several defence-related areas, with the result that the company will remain in the forefront of the world market?
Mr. Clark: Yes, indeed. We are building on proven expertise. We are extremely fortunate in Britain to have such a wide range of industrial defence expertise, which provides necessary equipment and will do so in the next decade for not only our forces but those of our allies and friendly customers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: First, will the Minister reconsider his answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)? Leuchars has performed marvellous helicopter operations both in the mountains and the North sea—which might be important. Secondly, forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the purpose of Skynet 4, stage 2? What is its cost likely to be? I am not necessarily being critical, but the House of Commons ought to know.
Mr. Clark: The House of Commons will know immediately. The purpose is to enhance our capability in communications under what may be increasingly difficult conditions in the next decade. It is not likely to come into service before 1997. The overall cost will be in the region of £200 million.
Mr. David Martin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the implications that it has for jobs in the Portsmouth travel-to-work area. I note that it is the latest in a long line of statements since "Options for Change", the theme of which was "smaller but better equipped". It is unworthy to think that he has made his statement just because the general election is approaching. I hope that such statements will continue to be made up to the general election and beyond it for the sake of defence workers throughout Britain.
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All this was foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his statement "Britain's Defence for the 1990s". However, it takes some time to put such changes into place. It involves a gradual reorientation and restructuring of our forces to adapt to the changed conditions. I hope that there will be many more such statements because the expenditure and contracts that we are placing are effecting a shift in our capability. Against a background of reducing our forces, the changes are making our forces more effective.
Mr. David Winnick: Since there are apparently 17 or 18 parliamentary days before the general election, may we work on the assumption that goodies for marginal areas will be announced virtually every day?
Mr. Clark: I certainly hope so.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: My constituents will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about continuing further orders for ALARM. Is it not a fact that the ASRAAM project will be more secure with this Government than under the Labour party?
Mr. Clark: Yes. It is time that that was repeated and recognised widely. It is almost embarrassing that every time that we make a statement on defence procurement it is wholeheartedly endorsed by the Labour party and Labour Members chide us for our delay in putting it in place. ASRAAM is a good example. It is a major enhancement of air-to-air capability and a large sum of money is attached to it. If I am able to catch your eye to make a statement, Mr. Speaker—I would venture to predict, but I shall not spoil the atmosphere by suggesting what it will be—I look forward to the Labour party's reaction on that occasion.
Mr. Tony Banks: Just think how many school books and pieces of vital hospital equipment that £500 million could have bought. Since Conservative Members are wedded to the idea of competitive tendering in local government, are those contracts subject to the process of competitive tendering? How much was recovered by the Ministry of Defence last year from fraud perpetrated on British taxpayers by defence suppliers?
Mr. Clark: I cannot answer the latter question, but if there is anything in it, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
As to alternative forms of expenditure for those large sums of money, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may have a different set of priorities from myself, or from those on his Front Bench. I strongly urge him to raise those matters. Does his skin not creep a little when he hears the Labour Front-Bench Members repeatedly endorsing such programmes? I do not know what arcane machinery the Labour party has to settle such issues. Are there no committees, conventions or groups in which that could be raised? If so, why does the hon. Gentleman not get on with it?
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it was an extraordinarily sensible decision to order six Sea Kings? They are a well tried, well proven advertisement for Westland at this time, when it has to fill the gap before production of the next

339
model, which will come along in seven or eight years. We can be sure that the work force there will ensure that it is an excellent aircraft.
Mr. Clark: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. There was a major leap forward in capability between the Wessex and the Sea King, which can fly at night, has a much longer loiter time, can cover much greater distances faster and is generally a far more capable instrument in that extremely important field.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is the Minister aware that, representing a seat in a city which is more heavily dependent on defence contracts than almost anywhere else in the country—he knows that because of the questions that I have asked him in the past few years —I believe that defence expenditure ought to be radically cut and that that expenditure ought to be shifted, in a planned way, to civilian projects, not only to protect the jobs of extremely skilled workers in the defence industry but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, to provide socially useful things?
Since the Minister said that his statement reflected shifting priorities and the reducing level of the forces, why does he not complement such statements with the announcement of serious studies into defence conversion? Without that, we shall carry on with the anarchic haemorrhage of jobs from British Aerospace and elsewhere and the skills which have taken years, if not decades, to hone will go to waste.
Mr. Clark: I am not certain of the hon. Gentleman's present relationship with the Labour party.
Mr. Nellist: I have been expelled from it.
Mr. Clark: Oh, he has been expelled. As the views that he has just articulated are those held by the majority of the Labour party, I do not understand why it does not welcome him back in.
Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed in the north-west, especially at Warton, close to my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend give some sign of the value of the work which will go to Warton for the air defence system for the F3 Tornado? Will he also confirm that, unlike the Labour party's foreign affairs spokesman—who last week made it clear on television that the Labour party would ban arms sales to the middle east—we will continue to supply defence equipment to Saudi Arabia and our other friends in the Gulf?
Mr. Clark: The immediate approximate value of the Tornado enhancement is about £27 million. British Aerospace is also heavily involved because of the announcements in the statement about the new Harriers, the Skynet system and others.
We regard the Saudi Government as an extremely important customer. They work closely with us in developing systems and we work closely with them on a military and civilian level with the British Aerospace support teams.
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Mr. Speaker: Was the right hon. Gentleman present for the statement?
Mr. Benn indicated assent.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, Mr. Benn.
Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that every family of four in Britain, sometimes hard pressed by unemployment and mortgage payments, is now paying more than £30 a week for defence expenditure when the cold war is over? Is he aware that the strength of Japan and Germany derives from the fact that they have a much lower defence expenditure and have put that money into industrial production? Is he aware that, at the end of the war, 4 million people were shifted from the armed forces and the defence industry into civilian production, which built our industrial base? Is he also aware that the sale of arms to Iraq and the Argentine is one of the reasons why people throughout the country think that the defence sales programme is often wholly irresponsible?
Mr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman asked about seven questions. He gave a very impressive demonstration, which will probably be more effective in terms of quality and comprehension than that which we shall have from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman in a couple of minutes. The right hon. Gentleman's questions lead me to ask him whether he is comfortable in the Labour party now, or would he prefer to join his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist)?
Mr. Benn: Be serious.
Mr. Clark: I am being serious. This is a much more serious point than a detailed repetition of my previous answers. What is the Labour party's attitude? How comfortable do the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues feel within the Labour party?
Mr. Benn: Answer the question.
Mr. Clark: Or would he prefer to be expelled?
Mr. David Amess (Basildon): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his decision to upgrade the Lynx helicopters will mean more work for Basildon? Is he also aware that, when he visits GEC Census in Basildon tomorrow, he will receive a warm welcome? Will he take that opportunity to cock a snook at the nuclear-free zone sign which the Labour-controlled council has put up outside the factory gates and which is deeply insulting to the local, excellent work force?
Mr. Clark: I am greatly looking forward to my visit to Basildon. I shall make a point of making an appropriate gesture in the direction of the sign. I agree with my hon. Friend that it must be most offensive to people whose skills, capabilities and dedication contribute so much to our defence effort to be constantly reminded of the idiocies—
Mr. Tony Banks: They do not make nuclear bombs in Basildon.
Mr. Clark: That attitude is shared by some Opposition Members, whom I will not identify.
Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcome by those who sat through the tortuous and often painful procedure

341
of the Government going for smaller but better equipped armed forces. Bearing in mind what he said today and the response of the Labour party, who does he think that the public and those in the procurement industry will believe —those on the Opposition Front Bench, the fire trench, who say, "Let's have more, let's have it quicker," or the two thirds sat behind them shouting, "Never, never"? Who is speaking the truth for those whose jobs are at stake?
Mr. Clark: If people have any doubt, they need only look at the proceedings of successive Labour party conferences and the constitution of the Labour party, which obliges it to pay regard to conference resolutions. They should also consider the Opposition's constantly repeated theme of a text originally written by Mr. Bruce Kent, who I understand is seeking to become a Member of this House. They would then have little doubt.
Mr. Den Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the deepest gratitude of the workers at British Aerospace in the north-west? Is he further aware that the voters of the area appreciate that they owe their future well-being, and the security of the nation, to the Minister's policy statement today?
Mr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The workers at British Aerospace are part of our outstanding reservoir of skill and technical proficiency. They have an absolutely essential part to play in maintaining the equipment and standard of our armed forces.
Sir Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, in recent years, the Westland work force and management have worked very hard indeed to increase productivity and cut costs? Will he further accept that this welcome order for Westland will not just apply in Yeovil and benefit my constituents but will be spread among a large number of sub-contractors throughout the country?
Mr. Clark: That is absolutely true, and it is a feature of defence orders, particularly in the high-tech sphere. A large number of sub-contractors and other providers scattered throughout the country benefit from such contracts. I also gladly join my hon. Friend in referring to the quality of the work force and management at Westland, particularly their innovative and technical proficiency in certain key sectors of helicopter design.
Mr. David Evans: The people who live in Welwyn Hatfield and those who live and work in Stevenage will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Will he join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), who led a vigorous quest for jobs in his area? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a bit rich to listen to the complaints of Opposition Members, who would cut defence spending by £6 billion, or 27 per cent?
Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I entirely endorse what he says, and the discomfort with which Opposition Members have received that repeated truth this afternoon is an indication of their anxiety on the subject, and their knowledge that what they say is not in any degree endorsed or shared by the electorate.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish to express my warm appreciation to my right hon. Friend for
342
a statement which is not only industrially of great benefit to the country but represents one of the most significant enhancements of British air power in its widest sense for a long time. Can he say at this stage whether the launch of the Skynet 4, stage 2, satellite will be placed with Ariane Space as a token of our commitment to the European space programme?
Mr. Clark: I would not wish to identify the launch as a token of anything. It should be judged on the basis of competitive tendering. Ariane Space can tender for it, but we want to achieve value for money and the best possible capability of getting the satellite up and keeping it up.
Mr. Terry Dicks: I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that will come to Thorn EMI, that eminent and expert company in my constituency, for the missile replacement. He will be aware that, although his decision may not create additional jobs, it will give great security to the jobs that already exist.
Mr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an excellent company, and I hope that there will be further orders for it as our equipment programme develops. As my hon. Friend says, the company has a useful and important element of the announcement.
Dr. Reid: I accept the apology that was graciously extended by the Minister. He will recognise that it is not fair to say that I did not welcome the proposals—[Interruption.] I used the word six times during my contribution. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what Opposition Members are saying because he is not listening.
While I accept that at this stage the Minister may not be able to clarify the position of Leuchars, the subject raised by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), may I ask him to say when it is likely to be clarified? Can he confirm that, despite today's announcement, we have lost nearly 40,000 jobs in the last year and more than 70,000 jobs in the last 18 months in the defence industry? Will he also confirm that defence industrialists have told him that, unless the Government provide a firmer direction for defence industry policy, as many as 123,000 defence jobs could go throughout the country?
As the Minister has decided to mention the good news and the areas that it affects, will he confirm that the loss of those 123,000 jobs will have a disastrous effect on Edinburgh, Preston, south Manchester, Bolton, Derby, Coventry, Stevenage, Weybridge, Portsmouth, Southampton and Bristol? Is not it about time that the Government did something to assist the transition from defence to civil production?
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing my work for me and identifying the constituencies that would be so severely at risk were the Labour party ever to form a Government. I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my announcement. I did not complain about his welcoming it, although I said that it might cause great embarrassment to his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I simply said that he had little else to say, which was why he consumed so much time fiddling about over the minutiae of the statement's title.
I constantly have meetings with the leading members of the industry. Such a dialogue is extremely important during a transitional stage for the defence industry. I can

343
honestly say that none of the leading members of the industry have ever mentioned a figure of 123,000 jobs, although all of them—I betray no confidence—have expressed their apprehension about what might happen were the Labour party ever to form a Government.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 6 MARCH
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Gerald Bowden

Sir Rhodes Boyson

Mr. Martin Redmond

Coal Imports
Mr. Kevin Barron: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that two years ago, under the private Bill procedure, the House passed a Bill promoted by a company called Associated British Ports. It was called the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. When it was in Committee, a leading QC representing the promoters said that the port concerned would not be used for coal imports into this country.
In the past 24 hours, Associated British Ports has said that it will go ahead, in conjunction with National Power and PowerGen, with building a coal-handling terminal at Immingham on Humberside to bring between 10 million and 12 million tonnes of coal per annum into that area. That is a further threat to the British coalfields, which made representations, through local authorities and other organisations, during the passage of the Bill. They and the House were gravely misled during the Bill's passage. Having been misled in what way, what can we now do to protect the jobs of thousands of workers in the British coal mining industry?
Mr. Speaker: I recollect the passage of the Bill because it took a number of opposed Private Business slots at 7 o'clock. I can do nothing about it, however, because it is now an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Bill took a long time to get through the House because it masqueraded as a private Bill, whereas in fact it was a political Bill based on destroying the coal industry and increasing the balance of payments deficit by importing coal. The Chairman nominated by the Tory party, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), was not independent, as he should have been to chair a private Bill Committee. He was a consultant to a firm that was a subsidiary body of the firm that carried out the proposal at Immingham. The whole matter should be examined afresh.
Mr. Speaker: I recollect that allegation having been made—[Interruption.] Order. I hope that those comments were not directed to me.
Mr. Skinner: No, Mr. Speaker; they were directed at the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), the one wearing Pampers.
Mr. Speaker: I deprecate these personal allegations, from whichever side they came.

BILL PRESENTED
  BLASPHEMY
  Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to make provision for the punishment of persons who blaspheme against certain religions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed. [Bill 84.]

Prisons (Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts)
4.19 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the treatment of prisoners who are addicted to drugs, and for consequential organisational changes; and for connected purposes.
This Bill provides for the setting up of drug-free wings in prisons for the treatment of gaoled addicts. This morning, on the BBC's "Today" programme, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discussed the recent crime figures. During the course of the discussion he disclosed that 40 per cent. of all crimes are drug-related. In other words, 40 per cent. of all crimes are committed either by somebody under the influence of drugs or in order to feed the habit. My Bill is intended to help to deal with this problem.
In my constituency at Stockport the police divisional commander, Chief Superintendent Whittle, has long contended that drug-taking has much to do with the recent explosion in property crime. This view is supported by Paul Cavadino of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, who said recently:
"Our own research department found that most young heroin users were social security claimants with an average legitimate income of £45 a week, but they spent on average £500 a week on heroin, and 80 per cent. of them were continuously involved in an enormous amount of crime to finance their drug habit."
It is small wonder, then, that so many cars are broken into, handbags snatched and elderly people prayed upon—and worse.
The purpose of the Bill is to introduce spot urine tests for all prisoners and, furthermore, to make provision for special prison wings which prisoners addicted to drugs could volunteer to enter. Far too often people go to gaol as addicts and come out as addicts. Indeed, a recent reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), Minister of State for the Home Department, whom I am glad to see on the Front Bench, to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) disclosed that in the year ending 31 December 1991 there were 683 drug equipment finds in our prisons. There were many needles that had been sharpened and used over and over again. It is small wonder that there is an HIV explosion among prisoners.
346
Furthermore, 90 per cent. of males attending London drug dependency units have a history of conviction, and almost one quarter of all women going to gaol are estimated to be drug-dependent, and most of those are injecting. With the exception of Scotland—an addiction unit has been set up in Low Moss prison, Strathclyde—we have so far been doing little to improve the situation in gaols. Many addicts go to goal and come out just as addicted as when they went in.
My Bill provides that we follow the example set by prisons in Holland. Dutch prisons legislation provides for the setting up of separate wings designed for drug addicts. It is estimated that in Holland addicts comprise about 30 per cent. of the prison population. When remanded or sentenced, addicted prisoners are given the option of going into a drug-free unit manned by specially trained officers. Each inmate has to undergo a urine test every day, and if he fails once he goes back into the main stream.
The advantages of this system are twofold. First, if addicts anxious to be cured are kept in a rigid regime separate from mainstream prisoners they will not be tempted by prisoners dealing in drugs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) disclosed to the House, a recent British Medical Journal study showed that two thirds of convicted drug addicts
"found needles in prison and injected with them".—[Offieial Report, 14 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 452]
It would be so much better to have urine tests instead of providing needles for addicts in gaol, as someone suggested.
The second advantage is that, if the detoxification programme is successful—all the signs from Holland are that it will be—there is less chance of former addicts reoffending. That would be good for my right hon. Friend's crime figures, good for addicts and, most importantly, good for the victims of crime, of which there are far too many. I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Christopher Gill and Mr. Chris Butler.

PRISONS (REHABILITATION OF DRUG ADDICTS)
Mr. Tony Favell accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the treatment of prisoners who are addicted to drugs, and for consequential organisational changes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 85.]
Opposition Day
  5TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Recession and Unemployment
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. Due to the large number of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate, I propose to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 pm. If those called before that time make brief contributions, it may be possible to relax the time limit.
    4.26 pm
    Mr. John Smith: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the continuing recession which has caused the longest period of continuously falling output since the Second World War; notes that Government promises of recovery from recession have been totally unfounded; condemns the record level of business failures and house repossessions, the damaging decline in manufacturing investment and manufacturing output, and the accelerating rate of unemployment which has risen for 22 months in succession; and calls upon the Government to adopt policies which promote investment, reduce unemployment, and tackle Britain's major training and skills crisis.
    In the wind-up speech at the end of last year's Budget debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
    "I am not in the business of publishing forecasts that are more optimistic than I think is the case, as that leads us nowhere. It is better to put the facts before Parliament and the country."
    He continued:
    "There is every reason to expect that growth will start again towards the middle of the year."—[Official Report, 25 March 1991; Vol. 188, c. 698.]
    It is difficult to disagree with the Chancellor that forecasts should not be based on false optimism, and that facts should be put properly before Parliament and the country. Unfortunately, despite the Chancellor's cautious tone and his admonition against bogus predictions, he and the Prime Minister have spent the year since that Budget engaged in little else.
    Growth did not start again towards the middle of last year. Indeed, it does not look as though it will start before the middle of this year. Month after month, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister promised that recovery was just around the corner. The Chancellor often found interesting ways of expressing his words of optimism and self-encouragement. In June he detected "vague and faint stirrings". In September he found statistics that were "highly encouraging". In October he was convinced—admittedly in the curious atmosphere of the Conservative party conference—that
    "the green shoots of economic spring are appearing once again."
    It was not only the Chancellor who indulged in a bit of bogus forecasting. The Secretary of State for the Environment, who has replaced the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for this debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—claimed—
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is well known that in the run-up to a Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not make major speeches. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to imply that it is in some way wrong for the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to be here?
    Mr. Speaker: I did not hear that implication. I simply heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that there had been a change on the Front Bench. It is perfectly in order.
    Mr. Smith: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) did not hear me refer to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can only conclude that he was not following the debate with his usual close attention.
    I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Environment is taking part in our economic debates. I make no points against that; I am sure that his contribution will be valuable. He gets involved in economic matters from time to time, and he told us on 5 November, as reported in The Guardian, that the evidence of housing starts
    "powerfully reinforces the Chancellor's message. They herald renewed hope for all those anxious to move house. Britain is pulling out of recession."
    That prompted an instant reaction from the House-Builders Federation, which represents builders accounting for 70 per cent. of national output. A propos the Secretary of State's observations, Mr. Roger Humber, director of the federation, said:
    "Rubbish…Customer confidence is falling, house sales are weakening and confidence is clearly undermined by rising unemployment."
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls rose—
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is a familiar interrupter; I will give way once again.
    Mr. Nicholls: While the hon. and learned Gentleman is on the subject of the recession, will he name one major commentator who thinks that tax increases are the way out of recession?
    Mr. Smith: I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to taxes rather than taxis. We will deal with that argument when we come to it. There are so many commentators critical of the Government's economic record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will make my arguments on their own merits.
    Mr. Nicholls: Just one.
    Mr. Smith: I know that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches do not wish to be reminded of the frequent predictions of recovery which were made last year, but they are highly relevant to the debate today.
    I return to the Chancellor. On 20 December, when the figures for GDP in the third quarter of 1991 were published, the Chancellor went so far as to claim that there had been what he called a technical end to the recession. [Interruption.] They are at it again.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not getting off to a good start if we have interruptions from a sedentary position.
    Mr. Smith: The Chancellor claimed that there had been a technical end to the recession. He could only make such a claim because of the inclusion of oil production in the figures. The onshore economy for that quarter was clearly still in recession. He should perhaps have borne in mind the view expressed by the Bank of England quarterly bulletin for February 1992, which comments on whether oil should be relied upon in such an analysis and which

    349
    might be thought to be a reasonably objective commentator on such matters. The Bank of England states:
    "The slight rise in GDP in the third quarter came about because North sea oil production recovered sharply, having been particularly depressed by essential safety and maintenance work in the previous quarter. As part of the product of the economy, oil output should not be disregarded; but its liability recently to erratic movements can obscure the underlying trend in aggregate activity. It may be more helpful, therefore, to look at non-oil output, which fell in the third quarter for the fifth consecutive quarter. This is as long a period of continually falling output as on any previous occasion since the war."
    Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
    Mr. Smith: I doubt whether that frank analysis will be regarded as helpful by the Government, but it puts the matter clearly and unambiguously. The result of the Government's policies is that we have had the longest recession in the post-war era.
    We should also bear in mind the Bank's analysis when the GDP figures for the final quarter of 1991 are announced tomorrow. The non-oil GDP may well have fallen yet again. That would be the sixth consecutive drop in succession.
    Mr. John Butterfill: While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is on the subject of accuracy of forecasting, does he recollect that his Front-Bench spokesmen said last week that they saw no signs of a recession in Germany? Yet there seems to be one there now. Is this not a worldwide recession? Surely he can no longer rely on accusing the British Government, uniquely, of having created recession.
    Mr. Smith: It would certainly be instructive to compare the German and British economies. I shall deal a little later in my speech with the general excuse that the Government have promoted, about a so-called world recession being responsible for the British condition. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the last full year, 1991, the German economy grew by 3 per cent. while ours shrank by 2.5 per cent. Germany has had some quarters of negative growth, but they have been only small reductions in its overall output compared with the British ones.
    Investment in Germany grew by 6·6 per cent. last year. It is forecast to grow by 3·8 per cent. this year. Investment in the United Kingdom fell by 10·75 per cent. German unemployment was 4·5 per cent., contrasting with the figures for this country. Germany is forecast to have employment growth in 1992 while the United Kingdom is forecast to have a fall in employment. Most people would prefer the German economy to the British economy under its present management.
    Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: I will not. I must get on with my speech—
    Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
    Mr. Smith: I know that Conservative Members are trying to distract the attention of the House—and no doubt of a wider audience—from what I have to say, but I intend to persist with the case that I am making about what is happening to our economy.
    Mr. Oppenheim rose—
    Mr. Smith: Last week the effects of the continuing recession were made abundantly clear—[Interruption.] I am certainly glad that I did not give way before to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—all that he does is to make sedentary interruptions.
    Mr. Marlow rose—
    Mr. Smith: One of the few things that I cannot be accused of is failure to give way, but I have already given way enough times in this debate. Last week—
    Mr. Oppenheim rose—
    Mr. Smith: I have already made it clear that I will not give way.
    Last week, the effects of the continuing recession were made abundantly clear in the clutch of economic indicators released on what has come to be known as black Thursday. Manufacturing investment was shown to have fallen sharply, manufacturing output continued to decline and unemployment rose by more than 53,000. These gloomy statistics were accompanied by the announcement of large redundancies by major British companies such as Ford and British Aerospace—figures which are not yet included in the economic statistics.
    The reaction of Ministers to those events was curious. Some were subdued and clearly embarrassed. Even the Prime Minister was obliged to concede that the news was, as he chose to put it, "disappointing". One Minister, however, took a different view: the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), a Minister at the Department of Social Security, said that redundant workers at British Aerospace had been "liberated". Such an attitude takes one back to the article in the Financial Times on 6 February last year in which an unidentified Conservative Minister justified Conservative economic policy as follows—
    Mr. Terry Dicks: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: No, I will not.
    Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to quote unidentified Ministers from the Dispatch Box? How do we know—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The only behaviour that has been out of order so far has been Conservative Members' persistent attempts to intervene when the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.
    Mr. Smith: The article in the Financial Times said:
    "One Minister was adamant that high interest rates remained the purgative needed to flush out the unreal yuppy jobs in the South-East created in the last part of the 1980s, just as the recession early in the last decade had cleared out the unreal jobs created by Labour."
    There we have it. Skilled engineering workers in the north have been liberated; service industry employees in the south have had their unreal jobs purged. That is the Tory message to Britain.
    Our people look on in amazement at a Government who seem rooted in indecision, unwilling or incapable of acting to move Britain out of recession. The self-congratulatory terms of the Government's amendment to the motion today make that all too clear. We are invited to congratulate the Government on their success in

    351
    winning the so-called battle against inflation and in bringing down interest rates. Why was that battle against inflation necessary? After all, in 1987 the Prime Minister, writing a pre-election article in the Hunts Herald & Post, said:
    "Inflation has gone, the economy is sound, unemployment is falling, living standards are rising."
    On 14 January 1988, in the autumn statement debate when the Prime Minister was Chief Secretary, he told us:
    "Inflation is low and will remain so".—[0jficial Report, 14 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 549.]
    In fact, between 1988 and 1990 inflation went on to double. Why should those who put it up be congratulated on taking it down, particularly when the price of their deflationary action has been record bankruptcies, record repossessions and high and rising unemployment? For that matter, why should those who put up interest rates so high be congratulated on bringing them down? The Government go on to congratulate themselves on reducing the balance of payments deficit, but do they not realise the significance of having a multi-billion pound deficit in the midst of a damaging recession?
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, who was brought in at a late stage to this debate, could not have been consulted about the terms of the Government amendment. After all, in an interesting speech that he gave to the Tory Reform Group at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool in October 1989 entitled
    "A Fourth Term: Why re-elect the Tories?"—
    the question mark is a particularly interesting part of that title—the Secretary of State said:—
    Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important debate about the recession. Are we not entitled to know what policies the Opposition have to deal with the recession? All we are getting is knockabout.
    Mr. Smith: The wider public outside will find the behaviour of Conservative Members in this debate extremely interesting. Conservative Members are far better at handing it out than they are at taking it.
    In 1989 the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
    "Britain is not paying its way. We have a serious balance of payments problem… I beg our Party not to believe that a deficit on overseas trade is of incidental importance, self-correcting, easily financed. I don't believe a word of it."
    If the right hon. Gentleman believes that, why should there be satisfaction about still having a substantial deficit in the midst of a recession—a deficit which, as the autumn statement tells us, is forecast to deteriorate still further to a figure of £9·5 billion in 1992?
    What is staggering about the Government is not just that they are not willing in public debate to accept responsibility for causing and perpetuating the longest recession since the war: they are, as is the habit of the modern Tory party, actively seeking to blame others for our present economic misery.
    The rules of the game for the Conservative party are well known: if everything goes well, it is to the Government's credit—if anything goes wrong, it is not their fault.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Smith: Thinking it implausible to blame the last Labour Government after a period of nearly 13 years of Conservative rule, the Government have been on the hunt
    352
    for another scapegoat. On every occasion these days when Ministers are asked to explain the causes of Britain's economic difficulties, they are instructed to utter the magic words "world recession". We have had that already today.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Smith: It is an unsubtle and wholly bogus attempt to explain away the cause of the recession as an unfortunate foreign contagion, rather like a mediaeval plague, which no Government could avoid or counteract and which subverted the virtuous course of economic progress in which Britain until then was leading the world. That is the message that the Government wish to impress upon the public in every broadcast and in every speech on every occasion. It is an old technique—the constant repetition of the bogus excuse.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Smith: In view of Conservative Members' behaviour, I feel little incentive to give way. If they cannot abide by the rules of the House, they cannot expect to be supported by the rules of the House.
    Unfortunately for the Government, the evidence of the real causes of the British recession are here at home. It was a recession made at Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street. It is patently clear—[Interruption.] I shall persist against barracking and interruption for as long as it is necessary to do so because there is a message that Conservative Members want to drown out but which Parliament and the public must hear.
    Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if I can help. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has just said that he will not give way against a background of noise. I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say that we shall remain totally silent for every piece of policy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes across with.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: When hon. Members offer to be helpful, I start to quake.
    Mr. Smith: To return to the subject of the debate, it is patently clear to anyone who investigates the matter that the British recession was not caused by a world recession. It was the direct result of the roller-coaster economics which promoted an unsustainable credit and consumer boom, followed by a savage deflation which plunged our economy into its present condition.
    Exactly that point was made by the Governor of the Bank of England in March last year in evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service after last year's Budget. At page 26 of the report, the Governor said:
    "The recession here is in response to what was undeniably an excessive growth in previous years and what might be called unilateral correction by us."
    No mention there of a world recession. Indeed, the use of the word "unilateral" points in the opposite direction.
    On the very next day, the Chancellor appeared before the same Committee. Asked whether he agreed with what the Governor had said, he replied:
    "I do not think there is a worldwide recession as there was in the early 1980s. I think it is absolutely true"—
    I hope that Conservative Members will listen to this if to nothing else—

    353
    "that the main cause and origin of the recession is a response to the very fast growth—which exceeded the underlying rate of growth capacity."
    Why was there no reference to a recession then, when the Chancellor was explaining how the recession had occurred? Although that frank admission by the Chancellor to the Select Committee has been noticeably absent from recent speeches in the House by the Chancellor and his colleagues, they know that it is the truth and that in the end it cannot be avoided.
    Only last month, the Chancellor penned an article in a United States economic journal, International Economic Insights, in which, under the title "UK Economic Policy: Lessons from History", he re-examined recent developments in the British economy. In a section headlined "The Boom and its Aftermath", the Chancellor explained:
    "in the latter stages of the boom it was becoming clear that macro-economic discipline was being threatened by one of the Government's micro-economic reforms, deregulation of the financial sector."
    The right hon. Gentleman went on:
    "There was an explosion in bank lending … which unleashed a boom in asset prices, which generated an unprecedented and unsustainable surge in consumer spending. Government macro economic policy then turned to the task of curbing the inflationary consequences of that boom. The main policy instrument was high interest rates."
    That is pure Treasury-speak for "boom and bust"—home-grown, domestically caused, without a hint of a foreign bacillus.
    With unusual candour and precision, the Chancellor set out to his American readers exactly what had gone wrong, and common sense reinforces his interpretation. What malign foreign influence pushed our domestic construction industry into its worst recession for 40 years? What external force has so severely depressed the domestic retail sector in Britain? From which foreign part did we import mortgage misery, and which foreigners are repossessing the thousands of homes that British families are being forced to leave?
    The Chancellor has, as I have noted, been frank, but I regret that no contrition accompanied his candour. Where in all the Government's denials, explanations, contortions and misinformations is there a single word of apology for the misery that they have caused?
    It is, I regret to say, even worse than that. If the Government had their time all over again, they would do exactly the same.
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Smith: No, I will not.
    What I have said is not the result of some wild surmise on my part. At a meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 8 Janaury this year, the Chancellor said—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) keeps interrupting, we shall not make much progress. I hope that he will listen to what I am saying. I will repeat my last remarks for his benefit as I doubt whether he is capable of listening and speaking simultaneously.
    At the NEDC meeting on 8 January, the Chancellor said:
    "the policy would not have been different had we known the outcome."
    354
    The right hon. Gentleman told the House much the same at Treasury Question Time on 16 May last year, when he said—it is rather important for Conservative Members to comprehend and remember this—
    "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."—[Official Report,16 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 413.]
    If we had any lingering doubts about the Government's intentions, the Prime Minister put their position very clearly when he said,
    "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
    Plainly, the Government are now embarrassed about what both the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have said. That was reflected in the Prime Minister's defensive scrambling at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. He claimed, for example, that the Chancellor had not "in context", as he put it, made the statement about unemployment and the recession being a price "well worth paying". We all heard him say that. The context, however, was entirely apposite; the Chancellor was answering a question about the link between unemployment and high interest rates, which had been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). The exchange can be found in column 413 of Hansard, dated 16 May 1991. The Prime Minister's celebrated statement—
    "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working"—
    conveyed exactly the same depressing message.
    It may not be any comfort to the 930 companies going bust every week, the million people who have become unemployed or the thousands of families who have lost their homes to know that it was all part of the Government's plan—that their hurting was necessary to the Government's work. They should be in no doubt, however, as to who is responsible for the disasters that have befallen them. The Government's amendment contains not even a marginal recognition of the real problems of our economy, and the vital need for an investment-led recovery. I believe that we shall have little chance of meeting the challenges of the 1990s successfully if investment continues to fall. Investment is the very life blood of the economy; if it continues at a low level, we shall not be able to close the investment gap between us and our major European competitors.
    Since 1979, investment in manufacturing has increased by 47 per cent. in Germany, by 52 per cent. in France, by 73 per cent. in Italy and by more than 100 per cent. in the Netherlands. In Britain, under the present Government, it is below its 1979 level.
    The latest figures for manufacturing investment for the last quarter of 1991 show that it is still falling, and that the CBI forecasts a further fall this year. That is why so many other people—as well as Opposition Members—are urging action to stimulate investment. Early action to cut the high interest rate, particularly the high real interest rate, would of course be of particular value to our hard-pressed industrial sector. I believe that there is scope at this stage for the Government to make a further reduction, and they should not hesitate to do so.
    The Government should also initiate fiscal incentives to boost investment. Why have they so obstinately set their face against increasing capital allowances, when so many in industry and commerce urge just such a policy? Investment is also crucially needed in the development of human skills. The sad fact is, as every objective international comparison reveals, that Britain lags behind the rest of the Community in provision for training.
    Mr. Ted Leadbitter: In the middle of last year, in another place, the Select Committee on Science—and Technology—with a Conservative majority—concluded in its report that the Government had no policy for industry and no policy for Britain. Furthermore, it expressed the view that, if the Government did not alter course, no British-owned manufacturing industry would be left in this country.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has made a particuarly good point. It will register with the Secretary of State for the Environment, whose book "Where There's a Will" is described as a No. 1 best seller. The only thing wrong with the cover is the view expressed by The Guardian's Hugo Young that the book is
    "Of its kind, the most impressive book I've read by a modern Conservative."
    I do not know whether that will do him much good.
    In his book, the Secretary of State makes a strong cse for an industrial strategy. [Interruption.] I do not suppose that Conservative Members want to hear about that, either, but I suggest that they read the right hon. Gentleman's book—especially those who voted for him in the leadership election.
    Mr. Hind rose—
    Mr. Smith: There is one of them. I will give way to him, because I know that he voted for the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hind: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he explain how increasing taxation will get Britain out of the recession?
    Mr. Smith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, in his few remaining weeks in the House of Commons, should understand that Labour's tax and spending proposals mean that we redistribute money to pensioners and the recipients of child benefit. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt about the effect of such a policy, he can read the comments of City analysts, who have described it as mildly reflationary.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Smith: I have only just given way, after repeated sedentary interruptions.
    What is disturbing, and what I think that the Secretary of State for the Environment genuinely appreciates—although other Ministers may not—is the problem caused by our poor industrial training. Last year, the Institute for Economic and Social Research published a paper which starkly revealed Britain's weakness in developing intermediate skills. It showed that, in Britain, 31 per cent. of technical workers in manufacturing had no vocational qualifications. In Germany, the figure was only 8 per cent. At higher levels of qualification, only 14 per cent. of British technicians were qualified, while in Germany the figure was 36 per cent.
    That could be put in another way. It could be put in this way:
    "In West Germany 80 per cent. of fifteen year olds go on to full time vocational schools or employer co-ordinated training schemes. West German employers spend 20 per cent. more on training their workforce than employers in Britain. 94 per cent. of Japanese 16-year-olds stay on at school for another three years. France produces three times as many mechanical and electronic technicians as we do."
    356
    That is a direct quotation from the right hon. Gentleman's famous Blackpool Tory conference speech. He clearly understands the nature of the problem. Nor, at that time at least, was he fooled by the Government. He said:
    "We can point to the £2 billion we spend on training over and above that which was spent a decade ago. But let us be honest about what this programme really is. The training schemes which we have rightly created in the midst of the unemployment of the early '80s are mostly for those who cannot find work for themselves—to put it bluntly, the least able. But the most urgent problem is not to provide training for those devoid of any, important though that is. The priority is to raise the skill-levels of those clearly able to find employment."
    I would not choose to state the problem in precisely the way that the right hon. Gentleman chose for his speech to a Conservative party fringe meeting, but he understands very clearly that all is not well.
    How, I wonder, can the right hon. Gentleman honourably justify the policies of a Government who have recently announced yet further cuts in expenditure on training? Next year it will be reduced by more than £170 million. Youth training will be cut by £50 million and employment training by £60, and training in work continues to be woefully neglected by the Government. It is all the more remarkable that training for the unemployed should be cut when the numbers of long-term unemployed have increased so substantially. Only yesterday the Prime Minister was wringing his hands and saying that the increase in long-term unemployment was "extremely unwelcome". If he means what he says, why does he not restore the budget for employment training which has been so drastically reduced?
    We need to stimulate investment in new plant and equipment and new technology but that needs to be matched by an equivalent commitment to training for work and for people in work. To compete in a world of constant technological change, the investment and training gaps must be closed. Part of the stimulus to investment—[Interruption.] I shall resist Conservative Members' attempts to distract attention from what I am saying.
    Part of the stimulus to investment—[Interruption.] If what we have heard from Conservative Members is debating, it is not debating as I understand it, but systematic and organised interruption and vanity by people who do not want to hear any criticism of their policies. They are too used to the uncritical columns of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Sun, but—thank goodness—in this Parliament we can criticise them, and we will.
    Part of the stimulus to investment should be regionally directed through the establishment of development agencies—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House will want in due course to give a fair hearing to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Smith: Part of the stimulus to investment that we need should be regionally directed through development agencies in the English regions and the strengthening of the Welsh Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise and its associated local development companies. The Government constantly scorn a policy of regional economic development. According to them, it is a bureaucratic interference with the free forces of the market. It is, they say, another example of the dreaded

    357
    intervention by Government which they, alone among the countries of the European Community, so relentlessly scorn. Had the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry been able to take part in our deliberations this afternoon—he who is the very embodiment of Thatcherite economics—he would undoubtedly have given us that message.
    Will the Secretary of State for the Environment deploy such an argument? I wonder. Indeed, I doubt it. In his speech at Blackpool and also in his book "Where There's a Will", he argued the case for action in England to parallel the Scottish and Welsh initiatives. In the book he claimed:
    "an English Development Agency would help to do for England what the Scottish and Welsh agencies have for years done in their own countries with great effect."
    That is from page 169 for those who want to pursue those interesting comments on the modern economic and political situation. The right hon. Gentleman cannot complain—I am doing my very best to boost sales. As the beneficiary of a past in publishing which has left him extremely well endowed, he should be grateful for such assistance as I am giving him.
    Why do not the Government—this is directly related to the Secretary of State's own responsibilities—begin the phased release of capital receipts held by local authorities as a means of reviving the depressed construction industry? Such action is being urged by the industry itself, by local authorities, by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service and, for all I know, by the Secretary of State for the Environment in arguments within the Government.
    When will the Government realise their special obligation to the million people who have been thrown out of work since March 1990 as a result of their policies? There is very little concern shown by any Conservative hon. Members for the unemployed. They are dismissed from Conservative Members' minds and put out of their consideration, but we believe that it is vital that we embark on a temporary work programme which combines jobs experience and training. It is urgently necessary in a country in which unemployment is moving relentlessly upwards as month follows month.
    Mr. Butterfill: How much?
    Mr. Smith: To the hon. Gentleman who asks me "How much?" I say that our industrial recovery programme should cost about £1 billion, and this country can afford to spend £1 billion to start us on the road to recovery and to start to get unemployment down.
    Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks rose—
    Mr. Smith: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I shall not give way to him. His persistent attempts are intended merely to disrupt.
    Mr. Forman rose—
    Mr. Smith: If Conservative hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies reflect on what has been happening in this debate, they will find that they have very little claim to particular courtesy from me towards them in view of the way in which they have behaved.
    Mr. Dicks: What about policies?
    Mr. Smith: Hon. Members ask for policies, and we give them policies. We give them policies for investment, for training assuring work in research and development, and policies to deal with the urgent problem of unemployment, but however many policies one gives them, one is wasting one's time because they are not prepared to listen. That is obvious from this debate.
    I have little doubt—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it very clear that he will not give way. Hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies should not persist. May I add that I hope that the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) will desist from their persistent sedentary interventions. If not, I may find it necessary to invoke disciplinary powers.
    Mr. Smith: In the circumstances that you have described, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been urging proposals on this blinkered Government, but I fear that, as usual, they will reject them. They are increasingly—and rightly—seen by the public as prisoners of their own outdated dogma, unable to recognise the full extent of their own failure.
    The Government's amendment to the motion has the gall to claim that Labour policies would lead to a recession. Where on earth do they think we are now? What do they think of their own record? In one period of government, they have created two record-breaking recessions linked by an inflationary boom. In the early 1980s, this crowd of incompetents destroyed more than 20 per cent. of our manufacturing capacity in the deepest recession since the second world war. In the early 1990s, they have created yet another recession—this time the deepest in the service sector and, overall, the longest since the second world war.
    Can there be any wonder that their record of economic growth—an average of 1·71 per cent. per annum from 1979 to date—is so dismal? Had they been able over that period to achieve growth even at the British trend rate of 2·5 per cent. which was achieved from the mid-1950s to 1979, in 1991 our GDP would have been £50 billion greater and, on average, every family in Britain would have been £2,200 better off in 1991 alone.
    All this was despite the enormous advantages of North sea oil—more than £100 billion in revenues alone. And that does not take account of all the other benefits that North sea oil has conferred on the economy. It is so seldom referred to by Government apologists that from time to time we ought to remind ourselves of its contribution over the past decade. Despite all those advantages—falling commodity prices, for example—the growth record is appalling.
    Inevitably, that has been reflected in the standard of living of our people. It is revealing that last week the Treasury itself issued to all British Members of the European Parliament a briefing arguing the case against increasing the British contribution to the Community budget—it is a public document—and one of the key justifications of the case was:
    "The UK's relative prosperity has fallen since 1988."
    Our representatives in the European Parliament have to argue that our contribution should be less, because we are poorer in relation to the other countries than we were in

    359
    1988. It is a great pity that the Government do not issue a similar document to all Members of the House, especially Conservative Members. It can easily be established by consulting the statistics that the European Community as a whole has achieved 7·5 per cent. since 1988, whereas in Britain, under the management of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Prime Minister, economic growth since 1988 has been only 1 per cent. No wonder it is said that our standard of living has fallen over that period.
    That is proof positive of our relative economic decline under the incompetent management of an increasingly discredited Government. The people of this country will not forget that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who told us that rising unemployment and the recession have been a price well worth paying. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have said that before."] Yes, and I shall say it again, from one part of this country to the next, throughout the general election campaign. Conservative Members are all worried about it; they are all frightened about it; they are all guilty about it. It was an appalling thing for a Chancellor to say and it was an even more appalling thing for a Government to do.
    Increasingly, the people of this country know that rising unemployment and recession are the totally unacceptable price of having the Conservative party in government. Fortunately for our country, a general election comes closer every day.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the Secretary of State's speech. The House will wish to hear him, as the likely Leader of the Opposition in a few months' time. However, you will be well aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) there was organised gangsterism. Normally it would be difficult to ascertain which individual hon. Member was responsible, but during the speech many copies of a document were being waved about by Conservative Members. We can therefore ascertain which Conservative Member was responsible for the hooliganism, because under the rules of the House we can take up to 12 copies of a document without charge, but any larger number of copies has to be paid for. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, through the authorities of the House, identify the hon. Member who took all those copies and make sure that—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It was obvious that there were a number of facsimiles of whatever the document was, but I have no evidence to suggest—[Interruption.] Order. Let me deal with it. Hon. Members must resume their seats. I have no evidence whether the copies were produced by one individual, or of their source. However, it is obvious that there was behaviour symptomatic of an orchestrated demonstration—[Interruption.] Order. In my judgment, that is a matter that the Chair would deprecate—from whichever side of the House it came.
    May I advise the House that, whatever the election date may be, we still have several weeks to go before the general election? I very much hope that the House will cool down and steady itself. Perhaps we can now get on with the business. I call Mr. Secretary Heseltine.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I doubt whether it would help matters for me to take any more points of order. I call Mr. Secretary Heseltine.
    5.13 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its success in winning the battle against inflation and in bringing interest rates down; welcomes the recent reduction in the balance of payments deficit and the fact that exports are at record levels; notes that the United Kingdom has some of the most competitive tax rates in the world, including the lowest level of corporation tax in either the G7 or the European Community and that Government spending on training has increased by two and a half times over and above the rate of inflation since 1979; recognises that the foundations for economic recovery are now firmly laid; and rejects totally the policies of the Opposition, which would lead to soaring inflation, greater public sector borrowing, higher taxation, increased unemployment, rising interest rates, declining investment and a spiralling cycle of higher wages and prices which would destroy any prospect of recovery and plunge Britain into perpetual recession.".
    You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will of course identify the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Monklands—[Interruption.]
    Mr. John Smith: Monklands, East.
    Mr. Heseltine: —the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know that the main thrust of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was to suggest that the recession in this country was the responsibility of the Government, and of the Government alone.
    Nobody questions the nature of the recession with which we have to grapple. It has never been disputed by my colleagues or by myself. It is interesting that in this morning's newspapers the effect on the German economy is so adequately described—to indicate as clearly as possible the effect of recession on that economy.
    I fear that this morning's newspapers reveal another casualty of the recession. Labour's campaign, as The Guardian reveals, has quite failed to convince the British people that the British Government are to blame. Only 9 per cent. of the British people believe that the recession here is the fault of the British Government.
    If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has scanned this morning's newspapers, what he will have found interesting is not the uncritical columns of the Daily Mail or the Daily Express, but what he might have found in the uncritical columns of The Guardian. The Labour party, dismayed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's failure to pin the blame on the Tory Government, is looking for a scapegoat.
    I read with some surprise that, despite the onslaught from the Labour party, its members have already lost faith in the man at the front end of the attack. No Conservative Member would say such things, but I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues, loyal to a man, are concerned that he is
    "not radical enough on the economy".
    I gather that it is felt—dare I say it—that he is "
    "less clever than he thinks"
    and
    "less busy than he should be".

    361
    There is even a suspicion growing—only on the Labour side, of course—that he has
    "left Labour boxed in",
    and that his policies are deflationary and offer little
    "comfort for the unemployed or for debt-laden firms".
    [AN HON. MEMBER:"Is that The Guardian?"] Yes, that was The Guardian. The tumbrils are rolling. This evening's Evening Standard carries the headline:
    "Labour's knives out for Smith".
    The debate began as a vote of confidence in the Government's economic policies; it has rapidly become a vote of confidence in the shadow Chancellor. I find no difficulty in agreeing with some of the anxieties that flow from the whispers on the Labour Benches, although I totally reject the implication that what is needed is not less but more of them.
    Nothing more reveals the willingness of the Labour party to misread the harsh nature of present events than the accusation by the Leader of the Opposition in the House two weeks ago that the Government are "inventing recessions abroad". The report of the Bundesbank—the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East will not feel that I am undermining his position in saying that I trust the Bundesbank's views on the German economy rather than his—is that the main reason for three successive quarters of negative growth in Germany is
    "the international recession which is reflected in particularly low investment activity".
    Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman should think again. Inventing recessions? How does he explain unemployment in Germany of 3 million? Did we invent the fact that in the past three months, industrial production fell by more in the United States, in Japan and in Germany than it did in the United Kingdom? Did we invent the fact that there are economic problems across the world, from Stockholm to Sydney? Did we invent the comment on Japan by Russell Jones of Phillips and Drew? He said:
    "There's no doubt in my mind that the manufacturing sector is in recession".
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman talks about inventions. Let us bring him to the facts. Do he and the Government take responsibility for the tens of thousands of people who have lost their houses? Does he take any responsibility for or feel any guilt about the 2·5 million people who have lost their jobs? Let him deal with the facts for which he is responsible.
    Mr. Heseltine: We shall come to the policies that will affect those who have lost their jobs. The hon. Gentleman will welcome as much as I do the fact that houses are now beginning to sell and that the starts are 2 per cent. up.
    The issue that we must recognise is that there is one particular reason why the world economy is especially difficult for this country. Britain's economy is one of the world's most dependent on exports. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East knows that Scotland alone exports more manufactured goods per head of population than do Germany, America or Japan. He knows that Britain exports a greater proportion of our gross national product than Japan does. If there is difficulty in the world economy, our economy will suffer disproportionately as a consequence. If all our principal overseas markets are sluggish, we cannot avoid the consequences at home.
    The question that must concern us is the nature of the policies that we need to fight our way out of the present
    362
    international difficulties. In stark contrast to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, let me set out the policies that are essential for us to fight our way out of our present position.
    Mr. Tony Benn: When there are so many unmet needs in Britain and so many unemployed people who could meet those needs, why cannot the two be put together to create prosperity for the 1990s?
    Mr. Heseltine: The reason is that, unlike the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. and hon. Friends, we are not prepared to direct labour, as all the most ineffective economies in the world have tried to do at some stage.
    The question with which we must concern ourselves concerns the essential policies which we believe we must follow to fight our way out of our present circumstances. The first essential ingredient is that we must pursue the drive for competitiveness in every aspect of the domestic economy. That is critical in the battle to contain public expenditure, to reduce inflation, to keep interest rates under control, to attract inward investment, to stimulate new enterprise and to keep our tax rates competitive. Those economic policies are essential to our policies, as are those for improving education and training, and for the safeguarding of the environment.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Monkland.s, East said that we were doing nothing. All that reveals is that he does not understand what must be done. During the past 16 months, interest rates have been cut eight times and inflation has fallen from 10·9 per cent. to 4·1 per cent. The contradiction in everything that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen says is displayed no more eloquently than in the words of the man who is something of a hero figure to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—Jacques Delors. He said that Britain is fast becoming a paradise for foreign investment. That is why, in spite of the world downturn, we have seen in recent months Toyota's announcement of further investment in Derbyshire bringing 3,000 more jobs, Nissan's additional £150 million in Sunderland and other inward investment projects from Kimberley Clarke on Humberside to Toshiba in Plymouth.
    The objectives are clear. The question that we must debate today is how we are to achieve those objectives. To be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that he would have too much difficulty in accepting many of the priorities that I have listed. Nobody should be especially surprised about that. He is one of the few Labour Members who has served in a Government with a basic rate of 35p in the pound, a top rate of 98p in the pound, inflation running out of control at 27 per cent. and more days lost in strikes in just one month in the winter of discontent than were lost in the whole of last year. I understand that he is not leaping up and down to restore the record of a Government among whom he was prepared to serve without complaint.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman's problem is that most of his right hon. and hon. Friends are positively enthusiastic to restore, piece by piece, the regime that Labour left behind in 1979. What is at issue this afternoon is not the debate across—[interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) will show a little more restraint.
    Mr. Heseltine: What is at stake this afternoon is not the debate across the Floor of the House; it is in reality the debate within the Labour party and, even worse, the debate within the shadow Cabinet. On the one hand, we have the much vaunted prudence of the shadow Chancellor and on the other, the irresponsible extravagance of his shadow Cabinet colleagues.
    I hear wherever I go that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has become a star attraction in the City. Lunch after lunch, dinner after dinner, the assurances flow. The prawns are consumed and there are soft shells, soft words and soft lights. Not a discordant crumb falls on to the thick pile. "All will be well," is the message that the right hon. and learned Gentleman conveys. "The shadow Cabinet? Don't you worry," is the message. "I've stitched them up."
    The words are no sooner uttered than up pops the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, who said:
    "If you took a poll on Labour's public expenditure commitments in the City, you would find it almost 100 per cent. against".
    Think of the tragedy, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All those prawn cocktails for nothing. Never have so many crustaceans died in vain. With all the authority that I can command as Secretary of State for the Environment, let me say to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, "Save the prawns."
    Mr. John Smith: I forgive the Secretary of State for not knowing that Monklands is not in Edinburgh. It was very revealing about Conservative attitudes to Scotland. [Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Gentleman asking his hon. Friend where it is. It is in Lanarkshire. However, I ought not to badger the right hon. Gentleman about his lack of knowledge of his country. While we are of divisions within parties, does the Secretary of State hold to the view expressed in his article in November 1989 in The Times that Britain should sign the social charter?
    Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that the matter was then negotiated brilliantly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister [Interruption.] The Labour party has been duped on the social charter. Labour Members all know that the Germans want to export their high costs, that the French cannot resist the social charter because they have a socialist Government, and that other countries will not take any notice of it. The Labour party has been duped into signing up to that extravagant impost on our industrial economy.
    I have to recognise that there is another lacuna in the dilemma that we on this side of the House face. Up to now I have discussed the unlikely hypothesis of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East being the Chancellor of the Exchequer should a Labour Government emerge. I assumed that we should enjoy the bespectacled geniality of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But there is even dispute about that. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) tells us:
    "Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling Scottish home rule affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to act as Minister of Health administering health in England and Wales."
    At a stroke, the shadow Health Secretary—a Scot—is gone. By the same standards, the shadow Chancellor—a Scot—is gone; the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary
    364
    —another Scot—is gone. All Scots, all gone. Never have I heard so convincingly and eloquently made the case for devolution.
    Let us assume that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East survived the scenario sketched by the hon. Member for Livingston. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think that he has trouble now, but in those circumstances his trouble would hardly have begun. Not a day passes when his protestations of economic constraint are not shot to pieces by his colleagues. As each Labour spokesman promises a new priority, urgent action, immediate initiative—
    Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No.
    Each Labour spokesman has his own variant of a crash programme. That is exactly what it would be—the biggest crash programme in British economic history.
    Let us look at the heart of the matter. Only two weeks ago, Labour's housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) tried to cook the books by redefining public borrowing. He promised—his phrase was eloquent—a phased release of up to £8 billion of capital receipts, without, of course, increasing the public sector borrowing requirement. Consternation in the Opposition camp. Urgent telephone calls. But they were all abroad somewhere out there across the continent. Dramatic disruption of the grand tour. Then, before we knew where we were, the climbdown.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Heseltine: No. I am not giving way. In order that the hon. Gentleman does not get the quotation wrong, it might be helpful to provide the House with the quotation from The Times of 6 February this year in which he continued his saga of this phased release. He said:
    "There is no plan to revise the PSBR. I was wrong. I withdraw it."
    This is not really about the phased release of capital receipts. We have witnessed the phased release of the Opposition spokesman on housing. The whole House will wish to join me in saying, "Good luck, good fortune and goodbye."
    Mr. Soley: I have the advantage over the Secretary of State of having the script available to me with the exact words. What I said, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir George Young) will tell him, was that there should be a phased release of capital receipts and that that would have an impact on the PSBR. That is precisely what I said. The interesting thing, as the hon. Member for Acton will agree, is that he went on to say that the Government were also keeping that very option under review.
    Mr. Hesetine: The Times now joins the list, along with the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Guardian, of unprincipled misrepresentation of Labour's policies.
    Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A few moments ago, the Secretary of State wilfully and deliberately misquoted comments attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for

    365
    Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) who, with the benefit of his script, has corrected him. Should not the Secretary of State apologise to my hon. Friend?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I fear that that is a point of frustration, rather than a point of order. [Interruption.] Order. These are matters for debate, not for points of order.
    Mr. Heseltine: Without taking issue with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not frustrating me, it is frustrating them. All that I want to know is, if the transatlantic or trans-European phone calls produced a result, how much did they add to public expenditure as a consequence? Opposition Members cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. Soley: I am willing to give the Secretary of State a copy of the script. I have the exact words, as taken down at the time. I am happy to give them to him either in half an hour or later. If I give them to him, will he give an apology to the House?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am just old-fashioned: I believe what I read in The Times. I, the House and the country want to know what deal the hon. Gentleman did with the right hon. and learned member for Monklands, East. How much public expenditure was slid under the carpet which they thought that no one would see?
    Mr. George Howarth: Apologise.
    Mr. Heseltine: I had not intended to raise the matter, but as I hear the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Howarth) interrupting from a sedentary position, I tell him to go back to Knowsley and look at Cantrill farm, as it once was. It was one of the great housing slums of Europe. It took a Tory Government to rescue it.
    Mr. Howarth rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: I will not give way.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not one of the conventions of the House—[Interruption.]—there are such things—that when a Member names another Member as part of a speech, he is willing to give way when requested to do so?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It is certainly up to the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he gives way, but I am afraid that many of the common courtesies which we used to extend to each other in the House were forgotten a long time ago.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Mr. George Howarth: At least because of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State has learnt some courtesy. He mentioned Stockbridge village. Will he confirm that the Stockbridge Village Trust has been technically bankrupt for the past three years and that, without the guarantees which have been provided by the Labour council in Knowsley, it would have been in the hands of the receiver?
    Mr. Heseltine: The Labour council of Knowsley begged me to rescue that estate. The hon. Member should never forget that the Abbey National and Barclays bank made it all possible.
    366
    If I may leave the junior spokesman for the environment, I should like to come to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)—no slouch he, when it comes to egging up the public expenditure ante. Within the past few months, by his team alone we have been asked to support: local authority bids for an extra £2 billion a year; the full release of all those capital receipts; the unfettered discretion of local authorities to clobber the business rate payer.
    That is just part of the hon. Gentleman's programme. Then there is the problem of renationalising the water industry. In the past few weeks—this is why there has been so much muttering on the Labour Back Benches—we have heard about the £1 billion so-called recovery package, about the £800 million that Labour wants to spend on training and the £50 million that it wants to spend on the national health service by cancelling private health insurance.
    But hold on: not to he outdone, the hon. Member for Dagenham says that renationalising the water industry is a "priority" for Labour. What will all that cost—about £4 billion, just to get control of it. That will cost about four times the size of Labour's recovery package; five times the amount that it proposes to spend on training; and 80 times what it deems to be essential for the national health service. All for one purpose—to buy off the hard left of the Labour party. The consequence would be a return to the regime when Labour cut water investment. That was Labour's contribution to the environmental enhancement of that vital industry.
    Before the day is out, the hon. Member for Dagenham will be back on his feet, defending the higher tax rate plans of the Labour party, which overnight would do more to destroy the housing market than any other single thing one could do.
    Mr. Bryan Gould: I know that the Secretary of State can hardly wait for me to get to my feet. When I do so, I shall attack the Government's record on the recession—something which the right hon. Gentleman has so far notably failed to defend.
    Mr. Heseltine: My colleagues and I tremble on our feet. I promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall all be here waiting for the great hour when the hon. Member for Dagenham flattens us. I confess that I had intended to go out to dinner tonight, but I shall not do so now.
    I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Member for Dagenham. Why should he respect the shadow Chancellor's edict, when the leader of the Labour party designs policies over Luigi's pasta, late at night—economics bolognaise?
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it abundantly clear to me that he is not giving way.
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not want to pretend that the Leader of the Opposition isolates himself from advice, to act alone. He does not act alone—he does it with the aid and assistance of some of Britain's leading economists, even if they are heavily disguised as journalists from the Galleries of the parliamentary Lobby.
    There was the leader of the Labour party—wrestling with the twin complexities of national insurance on the one hand, and how to carve up the shadow Chancellor on the

    367
    other. Picture the scene. The Leader of the Opposition, fighting to prevent long strings of spaghetti from slipping through the prongs of his fork, while the minutiae of national insurance were slipping through the caverns of his mind.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are points of order.
    Mr. Foulkes: In my constituency, the level of unemployment is more than 20 per cent. Is it therefore in order for the Secretary of State to give us nothing other than a music hall turn?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the chair.
    Mr. Heseltine: So, there we were, it was the politics of Bedlam—fork-twisting, head-spinning, mind-boggling—the right hon. Member for Islywn (Mr. Kinnock) firmly in charge. He would have been better employed wrestling with the damaging consequences of his tax policies on the national economy.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East is not that far apart from his leader on putting up tax rates. In a recent interview, David Frost put it to him that The Economist had pointed out that, under his proposals, Britain would have the highest tax rates for middle managers anywhere in the world. Quick as a flash, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East said, "Ah."—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—I paused because it is so awful that I had to check it before I read it. He said, by way of excuse, "Ah, what they took was not all the countries in the world; what they took were the G7 industrial countries."
    So, there it is, on the record, staring us in the face. Put the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East in the Treasury and, as long as he can find some clapped-out, down-at-heel, fly-blown socialist economy with higher tax rates than we have in this country, he will be content to point his lawyer's finger and say that someone, somewhere is suffering more than we are.
    The Opposition have the effrontery to come to the House and talk of job creation. They talk of better education. They did so when they were in government. They called for a great debate, which consisted of agonising over the collapse of education standards that the worst excesses of Labour's social engineering had delivered.
    Twelve years ago, only one in eight of our young people went through higher education. Today, that figure is one in four and it is heading for one in three. The Government are investing £2·8 billion in training, enterprise and vocational education—that is two and a half times as much in real terms as was invested in the final year of the last Labour Government. In addition, the private sector is spending £20 billion on training its employees; exports are at an all time high; inflation is at 4·1 per cent., below the average of the European Community and that of the G7
    368
    countries. Interest rates are down by 4·5 per cent. in just over a year. We have some of the most competitive tax rates in the world and the lowest level of corporation tax in either the G7 countries or the European Community. All the Labour party can do is talk about taxing the rich, as though that will help the economy.
    The Labour party does not understand that there is a whole generation of young people out there—the skilled, the talented and the enterprising—who need to believe that there is a future for them here, in Britain, where energy and initiative will be rewarded.
    We want to see young teachers seek the initiative to assume responsibilities as head teachers. We want young engineers to believe that it is worth their while to be promoted to production managers. We want young doctors to stay and practice in Britain and aim for the privilege and reward of running our hospitals. We want young scientists to relish the opportunities to explore tomorrow's frontiers in our laboratories and research establishments.
    Mr. Giles Radice: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for someone who is making a speech to the House to speak only to those on his Benches? Is this a leadership bid?
    Mr. Heseltine: Why should I not speak to my own Benches? We are the governing party and we will stay that way because the Labour party is out of date, out of touch and out of office. We will keep them there.
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be placed on record, for the benefit of the House and the people, that the Secretary of State at no time made any reference to those who are unemployed. He had no message and no excuses for them.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that; that is not a point of order with which I can deal.
    5.51 pm
    Mr. Peter Shore: The House has had some entertainment in the past half an hour. However, the Secretary of State did not in any way raise the level of the debate or people's understanding of the problems that now face the country. We should all give him some credit for what he did do, because he raised the morale of the Conservative party. Conservative Members are now feeling slightly less miserable than they have been in the past few weeks. However, that is an evanescent experience, because I do not believe that it will last very long.
    The nation, having watched the right hon. Gentleman and the enthusiastic reception that he received, will be amazed. It will think what a splendid bid it was for the leadership of the Conservative party after it has lost the next election. However, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has mistimed his brilliant assault upon the leadership of his party.
    I want to consider the subject of the debate—the problem of massive unemployment, which is now the greatest problem that faces the country. I am glad that the Opposition motion concentrates precisely upon that problem, the tragedy of high unemployment.

    369
    The House should recognise that unemployment has not just been experienced in 1991–92—painful as that has been—but that it has been our continuing experience ever since the Conservative Government came to power in 1979. Unemployment rose from just over 1 million in 1979 to more than 3 million in January 1982—less than three years later. Unemployment stayed at more than 3 million in every January until 1988. That is evident from the Government's own official figures, which allow for all the careful savings that enabled them to pare down the official total. More than 3 million people were unemployed in every year from 1982 to 1988. Then we had a brief decline in unemployment when it fell to its lowest point of 1,680,000 in January 1990. Since then unemployment has gone up yet again and we are now having this debate against the background of 2,670,000 unemployed people at the count in January this year. Everyone in the House as well as the Government know that that figure will go up still further.
    I will not say much about the misery caused by such continuing high unemployment. Everyone who is in touch with his own constituency knows what wreckage unemployment causes to the life and the domestic peace, happiness and security of every home that it visits. We know that millions of our people are experiencing that. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the unemployment level in my constituency stands at more than 20 per cent.: one in five of the work force is unemployed. The unemployment rate has seldom been as high as that, but it has seldom been lower during the past 12 years of Conservative government. Such is the scale of misery with which we have to deal.
    We all know that unemployment is the main cause of poverty among families—it always has been. We also know that it leads to an appalling loss of personal self-confidence, self-esteem and dignity. That is what unemployment inflicts upon countless individuals.
    It is terribly wasteful to any country and any economy to allow 2·5 million people, who could be contributing to the growth of output and the creation of wealth, to stand reluctantly idle because their resources cannot be put to use. The fiscal cost of such a high level of unemployment is great. People out of work impose two burdens—if I can put it that way—on the Exchequer. The first is the tax forgone because they no longer contribute to national insurance or to any other form of taxation. Secondly, they inevitably have to draw upon the state for social benefit. It is calculated that every person currently unemployed costs about £8,000 a year in terms of tax forgone and benefits. We have 2·5 million unemployed and, according to my reckoning, that amounts to more than £20 billion a year. That is the cost of the scandal of 2·5 million unemployed.
    The Government have been asked why we are in a recession. They answer, when they can turn their mind to the subject at all, that the problem is inevitable because they had to impose high interest rates upon the economy and squeeze its vitality to deal with the problem of inflation.
    That is a partial explanation. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the former Chancellor, has reflected upon his own experience. He now tells us that that inflation was caused by the deregulation of the financial institutions of the economy and the unexpected consequences of that deregulation. I am rather puzzled that the right hon. Gentleman was taken by surprise with
    370
    his own policies. Anyone could have told him that inflation, in the sense of people borrowing, was getting out of hand. It was crazy when one considers the amount of indebtedness that was taken on by companies and, above all, private individuals. That indebtedness inflated demand to a point at which it could not be sustained. I should also say that, according to others who were not entirely happy with the performance of the right hon. Gentleman when Chancellor, it was his own absurd policy of shadowing the deutschmark and therefore failing to use interest rates in the way that they should have been used and at the right time, that led to the debacle.
    I am convinced that the Government have felt obliged, in the confines of their policy, to impose deflation on us because of the appalling current account deficit on the balance of payments that we have suffered in recent years. In 1987, the last year in which things were reasonably all right and the Government were thinking competently and talking about an economic miracle and so on, the deficit was just over £4 billion. In 1988 it rose to £15·5 billion; in 1989 it went to £24·4 billion; by 1990 it was down to £15·2 billion; and in the last year it was just under £6 billion.
    In a four-year period, the Government have managed to sustain a combined deficit of nearly £70 billion. It is the largest amount of indebtedness ever experienced in our history, in absolute amount and in terms of percentage of GDP. It is a shameful consequence of Conservative policies. The Government have no reason to feel happy about what has happened in the last year, because to reduce the deficit to a mere £6 billion in the midst of an appalling recession represents no achievement at all. Any further expansion of the economy would simply seriously reopen the gap.
    The Government have offered no policies for dealing with the present crisis, except to say that they hope that, once inflation is down, the economy will spontaneously revive. There is no evidence of that happening. It might have a certain plausibility if real interest rates came down pari passu with a fall in the rate of inflation. But while the rate of inflation has fallen—from just under 11 per cent. to just over 4 per cent.—there has been no similar change in the rates of interest that bind and constrict the economy.
    The reduction has been from 15 to 10·5 per cent., but the difference between the rate of inflation and the rate of interest is higher now in real terms than it was when interest rates were at their peak of 15 per cent. So I can see no prospect of a revival of any substance in the economy under the Government's present policies.
    What measures are needed and what must be done in addition to any measures that have been suggested so far? My right hon. and hon. Friends are right to concentrate on the longer and medium-term problem of improving the supply side of the economy. We want better training and output from our education system and we must promote research and development in the economy, but those are longer-term measures, not the sort of actions that will have an appreciable effect on the unemployment situation or the economy in the short run.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is correct to speak about the desirability of an investment-led recovery. If by that he means spending money on, for example, construction projects of all kinds, including a substantial house building programme—with housing that can be let at affordable rents for our citizens who are desperate for housing—and

    371
    investment in roads and transport and other infrastructure, that can have an effect in the reasonably short term. Such programmes should be put into place and we should give a commitment to finance them. They are necessary not merely to save the construction industry from almost total collapse but to provide essential infrastructure services and housing for the many who are in desperate need.
    Increased investment is essential to restore our manufacturing base, the collapse and erosion of which my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Monklands, East described well. If we are to get a revival of investment in manufacturing and industry generally, we must stimulate demand. Industry will not respond just to investment incentives such as tax allowances. Such action might have a marginal effect, but it will not have a substantial effect until demand picks up and employers, industrialists and captains of industry know that they can sell their current output. Until they can do that, they will not invest on the scale we need to rescue the economy. That is the heart of the problem.
    The crucial question flowing from that analysis is where the demand will come from to trigger the investment we need. The demand can come from two sources. One is domestic consumption, and the other is foreign consumption. Either we shall get the demand from domestic consumption here at home, which means increasing consumer or public expenditure—if it is the second, that must have PSBR implications; we should not be frightened of that because it is what the country needs—or from foreign consumption.
    In considering the latter, we face perhaps the most difficult problem of all, which is the competitiveness of the British economy. Can we, at the present rate of exchange and with our present interest rates, compete with our major competitors in Europe and elsewhere? I shall not make a long speech about the exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, from the public expenditure point of view, the nation has many needs? Capital receipts could be released to enable local authorities to build houses and we could do much to improve our railways and infrastructure generally. That, in addition to my right hon. Friend's proposals, would be a way to increase demand in the economy.
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend refers to the kind of programmes that I strongly recommend. But manufacturing industry is an important area and we must increase our capacity, range and competitiveness, which leads me to the forbidden subject of the exchange rate. No occupant of either Front Bench is prepared to be honest about the exchange rate. Once a country enters a system of fixed exchange rates, nobody will speak the truth about the exchange rate. That is why we on the Back Benches are free, and have a duty, to see that important questions about that are discussed.
    I do not expect any comment on the subject from either Front Bench, but I put it to the House that if we entered at the right exchange rate in October 1990, it is not right now. If DM2.95 was the right rate in October 1990—I have not seen convincing evidence to show that it was; it was consistent with an external current account deficit of about £15 billion, which was unsustainable—it cannot be
    372
    right now. During the three years 1989 to the end of 1992, the German industrial economy will have grown by well over 25 per cent. while Britain's economy will have declined in terms of overall investment by not less than 9 per cent. Those figures show how the increased competitiveness of Germany and how our own declining competitiveness affect us.
    Although I do not believe that interest rates and exchange rates are the absolute arbiters of policy, we shall not escape from the present deep recession until we are prepared to pluck the nettle and lower our interest rates in the knowledge that that will, if necessary, force us out of the exchange rate mechanism or force us to change our exchange rate within that mechanism. That is an essential ingredient in a total strategy for success.
    6.10 pm
    Mr. Steve Norris: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and to listen to his characteristically interesting and illuminating remarks. But it is an even greater pleasure to remind the House that this is an Opposition Supply day. My extraordinary observation is that this is supposed to be a day when the Opposition pick a subject on which they feel that the Government are most vulnerable. Having listened to the contributions from the two Front Benches, I do not think that many people will be left in any doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment put on a superb performance. His speech was as peppered with amusing anecdotes as the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), whose contributions I always enjoy. I was very taken with university debating societies and it is good to see that tradition continued in the House.
    The unruly behaviour, however—in which I would have no part, Madam Deputy Speaker—may have arisen from the Conservative Benches because of the unique failure of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East to answer any of the direct questions put to him by my right hon. and hon. Friends. In the course of the next few minutes, in what I hope will be a quieter atmosphere, I shall repeat some of those questions so that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) can think about answering them when he winds up.
    Mr. Stuart Randall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman usually addresses the House on home affairs, but I am anxious to hear his comments on the economy.
    Mr. Randall: Although we heard an entertaining speech from the Secretary of State for the Environment, there is a serious point to be made. Many people will have been watching the debate on television. They will include people who are unemployed, who have had their homes repossessed, and who have lost their businesses. They will wonder what on earth is going on in the House of Commons when there are so many problems outside, so there are two sides to the coin.
    Mr. Norris: In the next few minutes I intend to follow the line that the hon. Gentleman has just taken. I shall offer my contribution as a small business man—one who

    373
    has been in business for himself on and off for the past 20 years. Others will no doubt wish to contribute to the debate from their own perspectives.
    I am happy to acknowledge that the Government, in the wake of the 1987 stock market correction— it was called a crash at the time, but we all know that it was a correction—pulled the levers of demand too hard. I supported the Government, as did my right hon. and hon. Friends, because we desperately wanted to avoid a crisis of confidence—a recession, sadly—and in doing so it is clear that we over-ignited the flames of demand. The consequences of that were very sad.
    I merely make two observations. The most salient one, which should oft be repeated, is that Opposition Members urged us at that time to take even more fierce action to ensure that demand was maintained. Now that the House is quieter, I can say that it is also clear beyond peradventure that conditions in world markets have now exacerbated a situation which faced this country just at the point when we would otherwise have been beginning to come out of recession. The evidence of what is happening in the United States has already been felt by the British car market, for instance. Evidence of what is going on in Germany was cited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    I therefore have no qualms about accepting the full share of moral responsibility for the present position of the British economy. I see no point is pulling over entrails to determine the proportions of such responsibility, particularly in view of the evident collusion and strong endorsement of the Opposition.
    Furthermore, I deeply resent the implication in the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that only the Opposition care about the unemployment consequences of the recession. I know of no Conservative Member who believes that one unemployed person is a desirable feature of any economy. One unemployed person is one too many, one failed business is one too many, and we have seen too many of both those individual tragedies. Business failures are tragedies in themselves. They are as regretted as sad news, and as desperately disappointing to my hon. Friends as they are to Opposition Members. They are the sad and inevitable price that is paid for the brave action that the Government took when they recognised that the levers of demand had been pulled too hard and the economy was overheating.
    Although the Government took brave, draconian action which hurt, it has had, beyond any doubt, the desired effect in re-establishing the essentials for recovery and growth in the 1990s, such as low inflation and the best record of employment losses through strikes for the past five decades.
    Mr. Gould: I do not intend to intervene frequently, but I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Although I would reach a different conclusion about the beneficial consequences of the policy that he describes, I am entirely with him in his description of the sequence of events and the causal connection between those events. How does his analysis square with the case made by the Secretary of State for the Environment a moment ago, when he said that the recession had nothing to do with mistakes of economic policy made by the Government?
    Mr. Norris: I have a clear impression of the exchanges between the two Front Benches. The Opposition absolutely refused to recognise that international conditions have an impact on Britain's economy. That is patently absurd. It would be unrealistic to attempt to discharge the Government of their share of responsibility for the present economic conditions. That is so beyond peradventure as to be hardly worthy of debate.
    The crucial point is that we are now faced with a choice. For the British economy we have a choice between two paths into the 1990s. I have a message for any potential elector, of whatever age or income. Some people believe that one can make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East called it redistribution, but we know what it means. What of those people who bother to drag themselves up and make a success of their lives, who start businesses which create genuine employment? Some believe that, by so doing, such people become class enemies, and some believe—this is crucial—that there is credibility in the idea that raising personal taxes is the way out of recession. Anyone who believes any of those three fundamental adages should vote Labour at the next election. That is what the Labour party is offering, and it is no more and no less than the politics of envy.
    The reality is quite the opposite. Higher personal taxes simply deter consumer confidence. People have less money to spend and the expectation of still less spending power, and they refrain from doing the one thing that needs to be done if we are to emerge from recession—namely, spend. Such a situation destroys the housing market. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are good at telling us how many jobs there are in construction.
    Mrs. Llin Golding: And hon. Ladies.
    Mr. Norris: Yes, the ladies are just as guilty as the men.
    If Opposition Members do not see the inevitable consequences of higher personal taxes for the housing market and, therefore, for the construction industry, they are blind to the obvious realities.
    Mr. John Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have pointed out, time is limited.
    Let us consider the effect of higher taxes on pensioners, on people who during their working lives saved for the purpose of enhancing their retirement incomes. Why should significant additional burdens be imposed on those people? Why should such people be condemned for putting all their effort into the accumulation of a small capital sum? Why should they be driven to the conclusion that it was never worth while, that they should never have bothered, that thrift was never the right policy, that there is a distinct disincentive to save and provide wealth for investment in this country?
    The ludicrous minimum wage policy that the Opposition offer as a way out of recession would also be disastrous for the British economy. There can now be no doubt that a national minimum wage would only raise overall unit costs and add to inflation. A minimum wage is wonderful in theory, but utterly impractical. That is accepted by Conservative Members and, as I believe

    375
    Opposition Members know, even the Fabians have pointed out time without number that the minimum wage would be a recipe for disaster for the British economy.
    Then there is the whole matter of the extent to which the Labour party is obliged by those who pull its own levers to relax the reform of trade union law that the Government, over a considerable number of years and with a great deal of effort, have put in place. Our industrial relations record is at its best for five decades. That being the case, we should not be thinking about a return to the old chaos—the old business of half Britain being on strike at any one time. In those days, one could count strikes by the dozen. I was about to refer to counting them on one's fingers, but perhaps I should rephrase that as it would have taken far more than the available digits to count the strikes on any day anywhere in Britain.
    I wish to refer to another consequence of the policies of the Labour party. This is something that matters a great deal to me. Spirit, entrepreneurship and initiative constitute the germ of business and the creation of new jobs. People starting businesses do what such people have always had to do—that is, risk probably most of what they have ever built up during their working lives. They may have to secure second mortgages on their homes. They often have to work seven days a week rather than five; they are the last out through the door at the end of the day, the ones who switch off the lights; they are the ones who check the quality of every item leaving the factory; and they are the people who, year in and year out, are unable to take holidays. In this country there are many thousands of such people. But a person can be asked to make those sacrifices only if he is offered the prospect of the ability to enjoy his success.
    The Opposition's case rests on the desperate fallacy that, somehow, such people are class enemies rather than people on which the whole future of our economy depends. Entrepreneurs must be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their success, of all their effort and their risk. That is something that the Labour party has never understood. No party with any understanding of how business operates could ever propose raising taxes as a way out of recession and conducting a kind of class warfare, which is not only desperately out of date but also desperately inappropriate to this country at present.
    We have the lowest corporation taxes of all the G7 countries, and we have our best strike record for five decades. Conservatives are committed to lower personal taxes and lower corporation taxes because we genuinely want to encourage investment. But what we want is real investment, not the state-directed picking of winners. That is the disastrous policy that the Labour party adopted in the 1970s.
    Mr. David Evans: It failed.
    Mr. Norris: Yes, it failed significantly.
    What we want is real investment. We want to encourage reward. We want to encourage success and entrepreneurship. We want to encourage risk-takers. Anyone in business, contemplating going into business, or even working for a small or medium-sized business, should look at the choices on offer in the forthcoming general election. Such people ought to say no to the politics of envy. They should say yes to the party of entrepreneurship, the party
    376
    that wants the British economy to grow, the party that wants a successful outcome in the 1990s. I am convinced that, as the general election programme unfolds, ordinary men and women will realise increasingly the wisdom of that conclusion.
    6.27 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) gave a very graphic and accurate description of the life of small businessmen, the risks that they take, and the anxieties and burdens that they have to bear. He seemed to want to give the impression that the entire small business community, despite its difficulties during the recent recession, is generally weathering the situation remarkably well and can afford to look with enthusiasm to another period of similar government.
    The reality is so dreadfully different. The hon. Gentleman talked about people who switch the lights on in the morning and are the last out at night, people who have risked their savings and, as many have second mortgages tied up with their businesses, their homes. Those are the people who are going bankrupt at a record rate. They are experiencing business failure on a scale that this country has never seen before. Incidentally, it is not they who are paying out large amounts of income tax and corporation tax, as the return on their investment is currently so low, but they are the people who have to find the uniform business rate. They have been taxed at a ludicrous level because of the Government's decision, in successive years, to pitch the uniform business rate at the highest legally permissible level. Why do the Government, who are supposedly concerned about small business, pitch the uniform business rate at the maximum that they have legally permitted themselves to do, and then claim that, if the matter were in the hands of local government, business would pay far more? What a ludicrous proposition that is.
    Mr. Stephen Day: Am I correct in saying that the Liberal party has proposed giving local authorities the power to impose a business rate based on land values? Is that not a recipe for disaster for employment figures in places such as Lambeth and Liverpool?
    Mr. Beith: No, it is not. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about local government finance and the sort of measures that we would take to help districts such as Liverpool, so long as they were properly run and not run as they have been during much of the past decade, I can explain how those measures would not prove disastrous. Land values in much of Liverpool have been at a relatively low level for fairly obvious reasons. One thing that does not make sense, however, is to pitch the business rate at the highest level legally permitted when there is a crisis among small businesses, which is what the Government have done.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment seems to have brought forward his dinner engagement so that he can return in time to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and is no doubt trying to digest his prawns so that he can enjoy the hon. Gentleman's speech later.
    I know why the Chancellor did not speak in today's debate. It was for the very good reason that he was appearing before the Treasury Select Committee, answering questions about why this country is committed to the cohesion fund of European monetary union while

    377
    not actually committed to joining the monetary union. British taxpayers will pay for the convergence exercise that must take place, even if the country is not to enjoy the benefit of being in the monetary union. The Chancellor had a job to do.
    I do not understand why the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was replaced by the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I can think of a reason. The Secretary of State for the Environment squashed the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry out of sight on the subject of RECHAR and European funds. The Secretary of State for the Environment told the Government that they would have to climb down on that issue and, ultimately, they did. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the Environment for making his views known both within and, eventually, outside Government. I represent a coal mining district which has suffered all the consequences of the decline in the industry. We need that money, and I am glad that a deal has been struck between the Government and the European Community on that issue.
    Mr.Hind: The hon. Gentleman commented on why the Secretary of State for the Environment led for the Government. Perhaps in years to come he will be grateful to him for introducing a new concept of Labour policy —economics bolognaise—a phrase that may live with us for many years.
    Mr. Beith: I do not think that that phrase will be what anyone from among the unemployed and homeless who heard or took notice of the Secretary of State's speech will remember. They will remember the Secretary of State reducing Conservative Back Benchers to gales of delighted laughter by his oratorical skills.
    The Secretary of State did not apply any of his energies to developing policies that could give homes and jobs to the people so desperately in need of them. That was the action of a Secretary of State who is known to have a genuine interest in shifting the direction of Government policy towards a more interventionist role than that favoured by the former Prime Minister. As a spending Minister, the Secretary of State is also responsible for local authority funds, which are currently tied up but which could be spent on building houses.
    The Secretary of State seemed more interested in what —if they will forgive me for calling them this—obscure Members of the Labour Front Bench team may or may not have said about housing capital receipts, than he was about directing those capital receipts towards reinvesting in our housing stock, which is what matters to people who are not homeless. They are concerned not with what the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may or may not have said, but about whether money from local authority bank accounts will flow into building and repairing houses, and provide jobs in the construction industry. That is what the economy needs now.
    Unemployment increased by 53,000 last month and has increased by 713,000 over the year. Yesterday's figures on long-term unemployment showed the largest rise for 10 years. The output figures published on Friday show that output is no higher than it was at the last election. After almost five years of the most recent Conservative Administration, and the boom and bust cycle, we are back where we were. Manufacturing output fell by 5 per cent.
    378
    between 1990–91. In the last quarter of 1991, total output fell yet again. Are those figures explained by a world recession? Of course they are not.
    A world recession makes it much harder for us to get out of the recession that we entered long before some other parts of the world. It makes the problem more difficult for any Government, but it strengthens the argument for the Government to take anti-recession steps and to develop anti-recession policies. An export-led recovery will not come easily when other countries are also experiencing economic difficulties. Some of the difficulties experienced by those countries look like benefits compared with what we have been through in the past couple of years.
    In the rest of the Community, gross domestic product has still risen, while in this country it has fallen by 2·5 per cent. In France it has grown by 1·4 per cent. Italy's GDP is growing. Japan's GDP has been slowing down, but it still grew by about 4·5 per cent. in 1991. If those are problems, they are problems that we in this country would prefer to the experience that we have suffered in the past couple of years. Forecasts for the future show the outlook for Britain to be far worse than that for other countries.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I should alert the hon. Gentleman to one of his own party's proposals, which is hardly likely to advance Britain's economic recovery. I believe that the Liberal Democrats are committed to swingeing increases in the price of petrol, which will hit all people, including business people in rural districts such as his constituency, the constituency of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my own constituency. I believe that the right hon. Member for Yeovil has also proposed drastic increases in energy taxes. Surely that would have a crippling effect on industry. How can the hon. Gentleman justify those proposals?
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman should read what Ministers have said on the subject—for example, what the chairman of the Conservative party said when he was Secretary of State for the Environment. He said that energy prices would have to rise. If the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) thinks that increases of 10p per year over a period of four years represent swingeing increases in the price of petrol, and if he refuses to take into account the extent to which we—unlike the Government —intend to channel resources into rural districts which might be affected more adversely than urban districts, he fails to understand what is happening in terms of environmental policies. He might be surprised at what the Government have in store, were they to be in office much longer.
    The hon. Gentleman interrupted me at an early stage in my argument when I was seeking to relate how the recession came about and the way in which it was fuelled by the Government. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) was honest enough to admit that the Government cannot absolve themselves of the blame for the recession, but he did not go into that part of the blame relating to the way in which the Government deliberately stimulated the economy to an extent that was bound to lead to debt on a scale that is now protracting the recession. It is the experience of recession and the debts that people incurred during it that makes them so unwilling to rush into shops and create the consumer-led recovery that the Government said would be the way to emerge from the recession.

    379
    Ministers are now beginning to make some admissions about what has happened. The right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has admitted that the authorities in this country, including the present Prime Minister, greatly underestimated the demand effect that deregulation—a supply side reform—would have. We know what happened: at one and the same time, the Government presided over substantial deregulation—making capital much easier to borrow—promised tax cuts later in the year, thus leading people to believe that it would be safe to get into debt, and told people that if they wanted to buy a house in London they should do so in the next few months as there would never be such a time for tax relief. They made tax changes on that basis. The combined effect of those actions was a dramatic credit boom, within which lies the cause of many of the problems and the extent of the present recession. The Government mercilessly fuelled the recession.
    With the economy so deep in recession, Britain needs a programme that recognises the urgent need to get the economy going and reduce unemployment. There is little room for using interest rates, due to the importance of the exchange rate mechanism in anti-inflation policy, so one is left with a choice between cutting taxes or increasing public expenditure to get the economy going again. All the signs are that the Government's approach will be to try to achieve that aim through income tax cuts. We do not believe that that is the most efficient approach. Income tax cuts take time to come through and the people who gain by tax cuts may use the money—understandably—to repay their debts and not to engage in the consumer boom that the Government hope will get us out of recession.
    Income tax cuts only increase the spending power of those in work—not those relying on the state pension or those who are unemployed. Nor is it financially prudent to fund income tax cuts by public borrowing. It would be most irresponsible to increase public borrowing in the Budget in order to fund tax cuts. When Britain desperately needs investment-led recovery, Liberal Democrats do not think it responsible to concentrate scarce public resources on attempting to foster an unlikely consumption-led recovery.
    As for Labour's approach, there are signs that it has been criticised from within as timid and that key changes will have to be phased. That was indicated some time ago after the Leader of the Opposition's slightly confused comments about Labour's tax plans. He said that if the tax changes were to be phased, perhaps increased pensions and benefits would also have to be phased. There is an air of extreme caution, born of a desire to live down the reputation gained by earlier Labour Governments, and the caution may be so great that it leaves Labour offering no better option for an investment-led recovery than the Government. It will be interesting to see how much borrowing the Government engage in. If Labour comes up with a figure before the Government, they may find that in the end the Government have a higher PSBR than they would have had.
    The other great weakness of Labour's position so far is that it lacks the anti-inflation policy which is necessary to accompany the investment measures set out in the motion. That is why we sought to amend the motion by adding the anti-inflation buttress which we believe would best be
    380
    provided by an independent central bank. It is a mistaken charge for the Government to lay against the Labour party that its proposals would deepen recession. I do not believe that they would, although they might have some effect on the beginning of recovery from recession. The danger is that they might restart inflation if not accompanied by a firm anti-inflation policy.
    Labour has other proposals, such as the one-off increase in capital allowances to 100 per cent., which sounds a good idea, but on examination they do not seem likely to have all that great an effect. I would favour providing a consistent taxation environment for business— for example, by indexing the corporation tax allowance so that business could plan in the knowledge of its corporation tax commitment if earnings increased.
    If we are to cut taxes, one of the best places to aim tax cuts might be at business, and particularly small business, by cutting the uniform business rate and business rates in Scotland. That would improve liquidity for every business and there would be an immediate cash flow improvement. At the same time, we could get rid of some of the silly restrictions in the uniform business rate transition relief scheme—such as the fact that relief is attached to property and not to the business, thus discouraging businesses from moving premises when that might be one of the best ways for them to cut costs in response to the recession.
    Liberal Democrats believe that the most effective way out of the recession would be through a large-scale programme of capital investment and training measures over the next two to three years. Such a programme would boost confidence throughout the economy, reducing the fear factor which worries so many firms and people. It would help the troubled construction industry, enabling firms to continue in business and to expand their labour forces. It would enable British Rail to go ahead with the plans already drawn up to modernise and electrify more routes. It would enable many councils to start on projects for major and minor repairs to schools and housing stock. Health authorities would be able to implement improvements to hospital buildings which they have been wanting to make for years. There would be employment and export opportunities in the major energy conservation programme and the programme to develop our skills in energy efficiency.
    Perhaps even more importantly, such projects have to be carried out if Britain is to be more competitive in the long term. The Secretary of State said much about Britain's competitiveness, but too little about how important some measures are to secure that competitiveness in future. We need investment in our infrastructure and more efficient use of energy, backed by a firm anti-inflation policy.
    I noted that the Secretary of State quoted the Bundesbank a lot. I was interested to hear the deputy president of the Bundesbank calling on Britain yesterday to speed up moves to create an independent central bank to
    "ensure adequate prior familiarisation with the new structures of decision making".
    He was warning the British Government that they should understand their commitment that if they go into the monetary system they will accept an independent central bank. Alongside that, there must be a genuine commitment to free enterprise and to a free market economy.

    381
    I was very struck by the fact that the UBS Phillips and Drew economic briefing published on Monday last week said of the Liberal Democrats' economic programme, part of which I have outlined:
    "Of the economic programmes on offer, theirs is easily the most logically argued and the most sensibly radical."
    Looking forward to a balanced Parliament, and considering the possibility of a minority Government, the review said:
    "For economic performance the better outcome would involve power sharing in which the Liberal Democrats pressed home their sensibly radical economic programme—enhancing the best features of the Conservatives' policies or limiting the possible damage of Labour's".
    That was a sensible and wise judgment.
    In the light of the unemployment and misery which stalks so much of the country, we must offer the people some hope. Without an investment programme for jobs, backed by a programme to beat inflation, the Government are offering no hope to the unemployed millions, no prospect of improvement and therefore no basis for recovery.
    6.46 pm
    Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is always heard with respect in the House. He made a serious contribution to the debate, unlike the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). We take issue with him on energy costs and on the idea that businesses would be better off if local authorities were free to determine their own business rates, but I shall return to that shortly.
    With regard to the prospects of the Liberals influencing policy if there were a hung Parliament, I reflected with sadness on the time when the Liberals tried to influence the policy of the Labour Government during the Lib-Lab pact. I am afraid that the Government of Lord Callaghan and the right hon. Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) had the Liberals for breakfast, if we are pursuing the admirable gastronomic parallel of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) made the point that, probably in a few weeks' time, the electors will have to choose between alternative policies to govern the country. Electors are irritated by the badinage across the Floor of the House, which was particularly marked earlier today during the two Front-Bench speeches.
    In the approach to the February 1974 election I was in a position to observe matters as a party back-room boy. Possibly because there was a big miners' strike which diverted attention from politics, I do not believe that the Conservative party warned the electorate adequately in those months about what a Labour Government would mean.
    My hon. Friends may remember that Labour was elected to power without a majority in the House and with 1 per cent. less of the electorate voting for it than voted for the Conservative party. If we had properly warned the electorate of what the policies of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and his right hon. Friends would inflict on the country in 1974, 1975 and 1976, I suspect that we might have tilted the balance and retained power. My God, would not the country have been a better place and would not the economy have been better if we had done that.
    382
    So I fear that the electors must put up with our analysis of Labour's alternative policies. For myself, I am content to rest with what I think we all agree was a brilliant speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. He certainly dealt with most of the main weaknesses in Labour's programme for Britain's future. I intend therefore to speak mainly about certain matters affecting my constituency and about policies for getting out of the recession.
    The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to manufacturing industry and the trade imbalance. He may recall that before I arrived in this House I worked for the Association of British Chambers of Commerce which took a great interest in those matters and, in the early to mid-1980s, was critical of various aspects of Government policy on manufacturing industry, the state of our trade and our trade balance. It is therefore with some relief that I can refer to exchanges that took place during Treasury oral questions on 16 January.
    In the first of these exchanges, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out that United Kingdom exports have grown by 23 per cent. in the past five years and reached record levels during 1991. In December 1991, export volumes, excluding oil and erratics, were the highest on record. My right hon. and learned Friend also pointed out that after decades of decline the United Kingdom's share of world trade in manufactures flattened out in the mid-1980s, just after the time when my previous employers were issuing their warnings to the Government, and then increased in 1989 and 1990—and are expected to have increased again in 1991. That is a remarkable achievement at a time when this country was in economic difficulty.
    The other important figures in the exchanges at oral questions emerged in a reply to a question from me to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury. She pointed out that in 1988 and in 1989 62 per cent. of all United States inward investment in the European Community came to the United Kingdom, and that 42 per cent. of all Japanese direct investment in the Community came to the United Kingdom. 1 believe that the figures for 1990 will show that investment from the United States and Japan came here in proportions of 60 and 50 per cent. respectively. That, too, is a remarkable achievement for a country experiencing economic difficulty.
    The achievement of the Prime Minister in negotiating at Maastricht an agreement that would protect industry and employment from the social charter and the other horrors that some in the European Community and all the Labour party want to inflict on us has helped to promote the prospect of more inward investment to this country.
    Turning to my constituency, I am pleased to see that, following the movement last autumn of the Treasury Solicitors's property division and the Charity Commissioners' southern regional office to Taunton with several hundred employees, the construction of headquarters for Western Provident Association, health insurers, is going ahead on the Blackbrook business site. The firm has already begun to recruit locally. Inquiries for the Blackbrook business site, which is under construction, have come from the service sector—Taunton is strong in services—and also from manufacturers from other parts of the country.
    At Chelston, outside Wellington, where there has been a business park for more than a year, there are now 300 jobs. Developments are also just beginning at Dellers

    383
    wharf in Taunton, most of the site having been cleared in the past six months. It is also awaiting the start of construction of a Safeway food store and other shops, and a housing development.
    I take this opportunity to warn those responsible for planning in my local authority and in similar authorities not to depend too much on the retail sector. In the past Taunton has been rather heavily dependent on that sector and a number of large retail developments are in the pipeline, but we have seen during the past few years what can happen when there is a slump in retail purchasing. If, God forbid, fashions should change and people no longer wanted to shop in Taunton, there would be a further problem. I want a diversified local economy, which is why I welcome the movement of professional jobs that I have already mentioned.
    It is estimated that the various developments to which I have referred have provided 700 jobs in Taunton and Wellington; unemployment, which, in the travel-to-work area in January was slightly more than 3,400 or 6·6 per cent., would have been more than 4,000 had those developments not taken place. I pay tribute to all involved in them. They have rendered Taunton's unemployment rate well below the regional average in the south-west, which is 9·1 per cent.
    I move on to various matters which I believe are relevant to the Chancellor's forthcoming Budget. The policy of the Liberal party on this matter notwithstanding, Conservative Members expect some reduction in personal taxation. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on the Treasury Bench. There is a perfectly good reason for wanting to reduce personal taxes: a reduction would help to encourage and restore consumer spending. It is one of the ways in which this country can move out of recession. I would prefer the reductions to come from a raising of thresholds, not from a reduction in the basic rate, but we have had debates on that. I now want to move on to certain other proposals.
    The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned business rates. I do not think that many Conservative Members would like to return to each local authority setting its own business rate, but I know that Treasury Ministers already acknowledge that the revaluation, which was necessary and which had been disgracefully postponed by Governments of both parties, has, despite phasing, caused crippling damage to a number of businesses—especially small businesses and small shops, and particularly in the south.
    I know that there is a lot of pressure on the Chancellor to provide in his Budget some relief from business rates. The simplest way of providing that relief would be a cut in the poundage, but that would mean the benefit going to businesses of all kinds, including many which benefited from the revaluation and the introduction of a uniform business rate—for example, businesses in areas which used to have high rates. If we are really aiming to bring relief where the boot hurts most—I realise that that may be administratively difficult—we should direct it to the businesses whose rate increases have been most dramatic in recent years.
    I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed: can we not do something about businesses that want to move premises? At present they do
    384
    not benefit from the phasing, which is one reason why there are so many unoccupied shop premises and offices. I hope that this can be dealt with in the Budget, because the problem represents one way in which the business rate pinches hard.
    Small firms in my constituency complain a great deal about bank charges—having to pay for paying in cheques and so on. Some of the banks' policies are just an irritant, but others affect businesses' ability to compete and survive.
    I note that the Financial Times of 29 January reports a survey of 30 managers carried out by Birmingham polytechnic which suggests that bank managers, when assessing business proposals, pay too much attention to narrow financial criteria and not enough to factors such as management skills and technical knowledge.
    The Forum of Private Business, which has many members in my constituency and carries out regular surveys of those members, not only on business expectations but on policy matters, has addressed the policy of the banks. In a statement issued on 21 January 1992, it said:
    "There is still a gulf of misunderstanding and fear between borrowing businesses and their banks … With … a third of businesses still taking the risk of growing out of recession, it is tragic that … the codes"—
    which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has encouraged the banks to produce—
    "have missed these real 'life and death' issues".
    The Forum of Private Business then marks the banks according to its own assessment based on the experience of small businesses. The exception to which great praise is given is the Royal Bank of Scotland, whose charter for business customers received an 82 per cent. rating. I do not want to mention the important national banks because I have accounts with one or two of them myself, but I assure the House that their ratings were well below 82 per cent. Two of them were rated as 63 per cent. effective and one disappointed greatly, being only 33 per cent. effective.
    Mr. Stan Mendham of the Forum of Private Business said:
    "we are pleased that the banks have yielded to our long-standing call for invoicing for charges. But unfathomable bank charges have been more a cause for resentment than a threat to survival. The biggest threat to small businesses has been bank-imposed restraints on borrowing—at a time when small businesses need financial support to see them through"
    The Forum of Private Business went on to say:
    "Of 33 per cent. of businesses reporting a tougher attitude from their banks in the past six months, one in five said this took the form of removal, reduction, or refusal of borrowing, or increased interest rates."
    We understand why the banks are in difficulties and, regrettably, have to impose burdens on business. I hope that those burdens can now be lessened and that the Government will do what they can to encourage that process. That leads on to a matter that I raised at Prime Minister's questions about a year ago. I remember, as will my hon. Friends, that three or four years ago the lending institutions encouraged businesses and personal borrowers to borrow in the most irresponsible way.
    When I first purchased property, I was subject to a restriction of two and a half times my income and about 70 per cent. of the value of the property. We all know that ridiculous 100 per cent. loans were available at four and five times people's incomes. That was why the property market fell into such extraordinary difficulties, the down

    385
    side of which has hit the construction industry so badly during the past year and, I fear, will continue to do so. The same was seen with lending to businesses, including farming businesses in my constituency.
    We have debated the Government's role in that situation through their low interest rate policy in 1987 and 1988 and their perhaps rather delayed response to the great credit boom. Everyone in property and retail was enjoying that boom, but few pointed out that it might end in tears, as it did.
    Therefore, as the Conservative party produces its Budget and election manifesto, I hope that it will reassure the electorate that we have learned from these experiences in credit control and credit borrowing in recent years which have led to the difficulties of high interest rates which, happily, in the past year have been falling. We move into the next few months on the basis of lower inflation, much lower interest rates, and lower personal taxation compared with the past and compared with many of our competitors, and the best strike record for 60 years. That is a situation in which I am content for us to go to the country and ask for a further term of office.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Standing Order limiting speeches to 10 minutes now comes into operation.
    7.3 pm
    Mr. Roy Hughes: This debate on the recession and unemployment is timely because it comes immediately after the devastating blows that were showered on the British economy a few days ago.
    Last Thursday, the unemployment figures revealed an increase of 122,000 to more than 2·6 million of the working population. That was the 22nd consecutive monthly increase. For such a trend to continue unabated over such a long period suggests inertia on the part of the Government. Today, any Government has immeasurable control over the economic levers of power. However, the Government have chosen not to act and appear to be holding up their hands and saying that that is not their responsibility.
    On Monday, in a statement, the highly respected chairman of the Rover motor company, Mr. George Simpson, protested about the Government's failure to support industry. How right he was. The Government's laissez-faire approach is no good. It is no good for the unemployment that we are now experiencing which is causing considerable social despair. The lives of individuals, their families and whole communities are badly affected. Even Scotland Yard has recognised the link between social conditions, such as unemployment, and crime.
    Significantly, unemployment is not now confined to the so-called blue collar sector. People with professional qualifications have been equally badly hit. Likewise, the loss of jobs has not been concentrated in the traditional areas of high unemployment, such as Scotland, Wales and the north of England. If anything, the south-east of England has been even more badly hit.
    Some of our major companies have been badly affected. For example, the Ford motor company has just announced an all-time record loss of £590 million. Coupled with that comes the news of redundancies in its
    386
    plants throughout the country. A redeeming feature of that company is that its investment in manufacturing facilities in the United Kingdom has been maintained. Last year it totalled some £500 million. Those figures reveal the importance of that company to the well-being of the British economy.
    Two of Ford's plants are in Wales, at Bridgend and Swansea. In recent years, Wales has suffered badly from closures and redundancies. Traditional industries such as coal and steel have been badly affected and the last thing that we need now is a loss of jobs in the relatively new industries. In fact, certainly in Wales, there is a crying need for new investment and new jobs.
    Unemployment in Wales is now 123,600—9·5 per cent. of the working population. It is worth putting on record a list of companies that have recently announced redundancies. They include the British Steel Corporation, British Aerospace, Allied Steel, Ford motor company, British Petroleum, Ferranti, Marconi, Ferodo, National Power, Trecwn and Brawdy, the military establishments in Pembroke, Royal Worcester, Christie Tyler and South Wales Electricity. The list is endless, but wage levels in Wales are reckoned to be the lowest in the United Kingdom. There is a moral there somewhere.
    The bad news about the recession and unemployment has continued unabated. A week ago, BP announced massive losses. British Aerospace is to make redundant 2,500 skilled workers. What a waste. The CBI reports a sharp fall in manufacturing demand and output in all regions during the past four months. Even the Bank of England has had to reverse its earlier prediction that the economy was moving out of recession. Bankruptcies are at a record level. Home repossessions and mortgage arrears are at record levels, with 75,000 repossessions in 1991 and all the misery and unhappiness that that involves.
    On top of that, there was the announcement of an increase of 10 per cent.—more than double the inflation rate—in prescription charges. That is a direct act by the Government. The charge for a single prescription now stands at £3·75; in 1979, when Labour left office, the charge was 20p. What price now the glib assertion by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), when she was Prime Minister, that the national health service was safe in her hands?
    Given all those developments, it is no wonder that there is now widespread speculation about a giveaway Budget. Those who call for such a Budget do so loudly and vociferously, the main reason being the imminence of a general election and the need to save Conservative skins. We are experiencing the worst recession since the end of the second world war; after 13 years of the present Government, business confidence is at an all-time low.
    My feeling is that the Government's crocodile tears will be shed too late, and they will be swept from power. When Labour is returned to office, however, it will face a mighty challenge. My advice to my Front-Bench colleagues is to be bold. I have no wish to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)—I think that he will make a fine Chancellor—but the lessons of history bear out my analysis. Back in 1931, restraint and cuts were the wrong medicine, and led to the downfall of a Labour Government. Likewise, between 1964 and 1967, Lord Callaghan waged a futile battle, struggling to maintain the exchange rate; that did immense damage.

    387
    Marx may be old hat, but, in my opinion, Keynes is back in vogue. What the economy now needs is a bit of old-fashioned pump priming. That is needed for the transport infrastructure, road and rail; and housing problems are crying out for action. Homelessness has reached record levels. Surely it is better and cheaper to build houses than to keep people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Council house sale receipts should be released: council tenants' right to buy should be retained, but the sold housing stock should be replaced. A housing drive would also provide the means of returning people to work—not only the professional architect, but the unskilled labourer.
    The cuts in training provision are most unwise. Already, our skill training provision is well below that of our competitors. Money spent on training is the seedcorn for future development; our industrial competitiveness is at stake, and training should be encouraged in every way possible.
    Industry badly needs new investment. Long before now a sensible Government would have sat around the table with the captains of industry and the trade unions, and outlined a package of industrial incentives to bring about the investment that is so vital.
    I believe that, when the general election comes—on 9 April—the British people will finally come to realise what a disaster the past 13 years have been, and will elect a Labour Government.
    7.13 pm
    Mr. Tim Devlin: I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) that there are significant regional variations in the state of the economy, and in the way in which the recession has hit our country. I found the hon. Gentleman's speech most enlightening. It gave all who heard it — I hope that many more will read it—a flavour of the pressures that could fall on any future Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer when he came to frame his Budgets. He would, for instance, be under extreme pressure to spend a great deal on pump priming, and on other policies from which some parts of the Labour party are now moving away to a significant extent.
    It was interesting that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) seemed to disavow any knowledge of a world recession, especially as on Monday the managing director if ICI on Teesside, Britain's largest chemical plant, said:
    "1991 was an awful lot tougher than any of us expected. This recession has been longer and deeper than anyone thought. Effectively, it has been worldwide with even Japan and Germany slowing down.
    Most of our businesses are global, so we felt the effect on Teesside."
    I do not know where the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East gets his information, but I should be interested to know whether he disagrees with that view. Indeed, I tried to intervene to find out.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government scorned what he would describe as a sensible, planned regional policy. Over the past 12 years, however, the Government have brought about a significant turnround in the regional economy of the north of England. That may explain why Labour, having tabled a
    388
    motion on the recession, has so far been unable to produce one northern Member who wishes to discuss the matter. Perhaps that is because Labour Members feel that the recession is not quite so bad in the north as it is in the south-east.
    Last month, Mr. Simon Briscoe of Midland Montagu argued that the north and Scotland should reap the benefits of the often painful restructuring in the 1980s. While the south-east is experiencing post-boom retrenchment in the financial services sector, with adverse effects for the housing market and the construction industry, more distant parts of Britain, Mr. Briscoe says, frequently have a varied manufacturing base and growing service industries.
    The Government's role in the north-east, as elsewhere, has been to create a climate in which businesses can prosper and, in turn, generate strong and sustainable employment growth. However, in view of the region's deep-rooted difficulties—such as its long-standing overdependence on declining industries—the Government have sought to underpin those policies with substantial central support. Indeed, the north-east region has benefited to the tune of more than £3·5 billion since 1979.
    I might just point out that that money is composed of the old regional development grant, the new regional development grant, regional selective assistance, urban programmes, urban development corporation funds, derelict land grant, housing investment programmes and estate action programmes. The most significant element —the urban development corporations on Teesside and Tyneside—have a budget allocation of £51 million each for the current year.
    As we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, this country has been the most significant player in the international market in attracting inward investment into the country and, in particular, our region. Dr. John Bridge, the Northern Development Company's chief executive, says:
    "Since 1985, some 25,000 jobs have either been created or safeguarded in the north of England as a result of inward investment."
    He estimates that since 1985 a total of £2 billion has come into the region as a result of inward investment.
    Mr. Briscoe of Midland Montagu sees "a multi-track Britain" in 1992, with recovery beginning in Scotland and the north of England, only to reach the south-east some time later. I know that that will be sad news for some of my hon. Friends. I should mention in passing that the uniform business rate, which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) described as a significant cost to industry, has been of substantial benefit to manufacturing industries in the north.
    No one says that there is no recession in the north of England, and I shall not say that either. There is indeed a recession—it is a worldwide recession, but it has had significant effects in the north of England and Scotland. Even so, the Institute of Directors' bi-monthly poll found that northern businesses are much more confident of recovery than those anywhere else in the country. The MORI poll of 500 chief executives found that 70 per cent. of northern businesses were confident of economic recovery very soon this year.
    Stockbrokers BWD Rensberg, based in Hull, said that the northern region from the Lake district to Teesside, incorporating north Yorkshire and Humberside—the area represented so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for

    389
    Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—was an area where disposable income was as high as that in the south-east because the cost of living was lower while pay was comparable.
    It is interesting to note that in Darlington the jobless total has just dipped below the national average of 10 per cent. That is nothing short of a miracle, according to John Vaughan, Darlington council's assistant economic development officer, who is reported as saying:
    "whether the town can continue to buck the national jobless trend into 1992 is heavily dependent on how far away the recovery really is".
    However, Mr. Vaughan believes that until now, the signs, including those in the retail sector, have been very good. I am talking about a Labour-controlled council, and those are the comments of an independent official of that council. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who represents that town and who has fought so valiantly for its jobs, has contributed significantly to that trend.
    We would have a much worse recession on Teesside but for the brilliant performance of our exporting industry. There are currently £400 million-worth of contracts under way at the river's three module construction yards for the offshore oil industry. Industrialists such as Joe Campbell of British Steel find that although the going is tough in their industries, they are securing significant contracts in distant parts of the world—most recently in Japan and Korea. Barry Phillipo, chief executive of Davy McKee, recently said:
    "The world is in recession and people keep delaying decisions. But we have a number of prospects in the offing."
    What are the Government doing to help the northern region? Let us consider briefly the total of £4 billion currently being invested in Teesside. The biggest project is the £2 billion gas pipe from Amoco's fields in the North sea, which will bring 500,000 barrels of oil ashore from Ekofisk to the Seal Sands petroleum refinery. Similarly, Teesside's development corporation project is investing £1 billion in my constituency.
    ICI is constructing a new acrylics plant at Billingham, and the ICI Quorn food plant at Stokesley is receiving £37 million of investment. British Steel's new pipe mill in Hartlepool has £100 million of investment. The MTM chemical plant at Teesport is receiving £100 million. The port authority is putting £27 million into the development of the port in the next three years.
    Even Middlesbrough council city challenge is renovating the city centre with a £35 million grant from central Government. Meanwhile, Sir John Hall of Wynyard is building a new business park worth £500 million. Recently we heard that the Livera Foods cake factory will bring 700 jobs to Preston Farm industrial estate and will be worth £7 million. As Sir John Hall so ably says:
    "There is no other region in the UK where people have the confidence to invest."
    The Middlesbrough Evening Gazette recently commented:
    "This region once known as England's workshop is now turning out top class products and services which are helping the entire country to fight back. One of the biggest boosts to the area has been the continuing development of the Teesdale site at Thornaby"
    and the new university. It continues:
    "But ICI, one of the foundation stones of Cleveland's past prosperity, continues to invest"
    in large-scale plant—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's time is up. It is up once the signal on the
    390
    digital clock becomes static. I hope that hon. Members will keep an eye on the clock. I dislike interrupting them in full flow and I try to indicate when they are nearing the end of their time.
    7.24 pm
    Mr. Tony Benn: One of the functions of a Member of Parliament is to explain as best he or she can to their constituents what is happening, why and what may be done about it. Having listened to some of the speeches today, I wonder whether they would make much sense to people who are suffering serious economic difficulties.
    I make no apology for speaking about the constituency that I have the honour to represent and for describing a Chesterfield development plan which is being considered with the good will of the council of the chamber of commerce, the trade council, the law centre and the citizens advice bureau, among others.
    The reason why I want to approach the problem of unemployment from the bottom up, rather than from the top down, is that I—and, I believe, many other hon. Members—believe that there is a world slump. I went further and recently used the word "slump" rather than "recession". The decline in the past 10 years has been very serious, and it is most unlikely that prosperity will trickle down from the top even if interest rates are reduced, even if the Common Market and 1992 works as promised, and even if there is a devaluation.
    Every community has its own history and tradition. Chesterfield was built on coal, steel, chemicals and engineering, and it had canals and railways. During the past decade, a decision was made—not an economic but a political decision—to close the coalfields in Britain. Nuclear power costs three times as much as coal, but pits are being closed to make way for it. We heard today of the imminent announcement that the port of Immingham is to be used—as we knew it would be—to provide imported coal. I think it is likely that the north Derbyshire coalfield, which when I was elected only eight years ago provided a quarter of the employment in Chesterfield, may well go—to be replaced by imports from countries where conditions for miners are disgraceful.
    Our manufacturing industry is in decline. I shall not give all the figures that other hon. Members have given, because statistics often do not reveal the true position. However, on the old 1979 figures, we have 13 per cent. Unemployment—6,000 people out of work. We hear about days lost in industrial disputes, but what about days lost in unemployment? In Chesterfield, 6,000 days are lost every day because of unemployment. If one adds the number of people whose work is lost through unemployment to that of people whose work is lost through industrial disputes, one finds that the figure has soared under this Government, and it has done so at an enormous cost. I understand that every unemployed person costs nearly £9,000. Chesterfield alone is therefore paying £50 million for the privilege of having those people out of work.
    Other problems include the housing crisis—the fact that no houses can be built—and the rundown of schools. I think that I speak for many hon. Members, whatever their political opinions, who take long surgeries as I do every week for four or five hours. We receive 15,000 or so letters a year. The problems brought to us divide equally into two types: those of people who are out of work and those of

    391
    people who have needs which would be met if those out of work were in work. That is the issue which I put to the Secretary of State.
    There is no question but that the Government accept a demand only if it comes from someone who can afford to pay for it. A need unbacked by money does not constitute a demand. The Secretary of State said that they did not believe in employing people to meet unmet needs because it would involve the direction of labour. I must point out that people on the dole have been directed on to the dole. If one wants to see a brutal direction of labour, one need only look to that. If money were provided for unemployed people to be used, there would be a move back towards full employment.
    Two factors are necessary to achieve full employment. That is what the Chesterfield development plan is all about. First, local authorities must be provided with general powers. I will not go into the details now, but I have introduced two or three Bills to give local authorities such powers. There should be only two restraints on what they can do: the police station if there is corruption, and the polling station if they are unpopular. Apart from that, local authorities should be able to do whatever is necessary to meet local need.
    The second question which always arises is: where is the money to come from? I asked the Library kindly to break down the national budget into personal figures, and I will tell the House some of those figures. I do not know where to start—except by saying that Trident has cost the people of Chesterfield £18 million, and that North sea oil and gas revenues, worked out pro rata among my constituents, would have brought £192 million to Chesterfield. Pro rata among all the people in Chesterfield, the capital exported has been more than £600 million. The EC contributions from Chesterfield alone represent £45 million.
    I cited another figure earlier today—that the cost of defence is £30 per week for every family of four. When one looks at it like that, one realises that if the money were redirected—[HoN. MEmBEas:"Oh!"] Of course it would be redirected. Do hon. Members think that Trident should take priority over manufacturing industry? Why are the Japanese and the Germans so powerful? It is because they do not spend money on weapons on that scale. Of course, that means that the money must be provided by borrowing. The party which opposes borrowing has encouraged more irresponsible personal borrowing than any other Government. So many people who need to have reserves have been encouraged to spend them.
    The way back to full employment is to fund local communities so that they can put their unemployed people back to work.
    What interests me about what I have just said is that I have won the support of the local chamber of commerce, which said in a letter to me that what was needed was a new freight terminal for the east midlands, electrification, and so on. It was concerned about matching skills to jobs. There is a common interest in every community between the firms that have laid people off because money is not being spent and the community which has a need for requirements to be met.
    The next election will be the 16th that I have fought as a parliamentary candidate, and I am looking forward to the whistle being blown. I believe that when that happens,
    392
    our arguments are the ones that will convince people—we need homes, better schools, and better facilities. If we were to elect a Government who committed themselves to that, there would indeed be a way out of the recession. Otherwise, we shall go deeper and deeper into a situation that will prove comparable with that of the 1930s, which cost so many hopes and destroyed so many lives and which ended with right-wing Governments in Europe and a war that cost us 50 million more lives.
    That is what the House should be telling the people —the truth about how to get back to full employment. If they do not do that, if they just play games, I believe that the Conservative party will come a cropper on polling day.
    7.34 pm
    Mr. Anthony Nelson: It is always an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but he sang the same tune, although with different words, tonight. He spoke about redistribution, which has been his clarion call all the time that I have been in the House, and all the time that he was a Minister.
    In the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and in the speech of the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) we heard the authentic voice of socialism. We heard the real call for a return to the discredited policies of the past—[Interruption.] I hear those policies being vocally supported by Labour Members.
    The hon. Member for Newport, East said, "Be bold, go further, spend more." That is what the Labour party means. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield talked about redistribution, about cutting our defences and destroying our strategic nuclear deterrent—which, incidentally, has provided employment, industry and investment in Barrow-in-Furness and the rest of the country.
    The real pressure on the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen comes from their Back-Bench colleagues, who want more spending, and a greater burden of taxation on the people of this country. The Labour party has moved away from what was previously its clarion call—central planning as a means of restoring economic activity and growth. The discredited policies of the 1970s, which brought into existence the reviled National Enterprise Board and brought our economy into penury, have been replaced by a neo-socialism, which talks about redistribution.
    In that policy there is as fallacious a hoax as there ever was in the calls for central planning. The call for redistribution assumes essentially that somebody will be better able to decide how money should be spent than those in whose hands it is at present. It relies on Peter robbing Paul to pay for public expenditure, hoping thereby that that money—
    Mr. Jimmy Wray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Nelson: I should love to give way, but time does not permit.
    The Labour party hopes that its policies will provide more investment, jobs and economic growth than would otherwise be the case. But if we examine the excessive commitments and expenditure plans of the Labour party, we find that the money will not be spent mainly on jobs, capital investment or manufacturing industry. Most of it

    393
    will go into recurrent expenditure—into the social security budget, for example, which represents £15 billion out of the £37 billion, at least, that has already been costed.
    The Labour party is trying to perpetrate a cruel hoax on the electorate. It is time that we nailed the Labour lie. Redistribution will not regenerate growth in this country; it will merely add a further burden on people who are working and saving, trying to achieve some choice and an improvement in their personal standard of living.
    Neither the motion, nor the contents of the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) about education and training, offer any immediate panacea. Labour Members talk about cuts in the training programme—yet we are spending 2·5 times as much in real terms as the Labour party ever considered spending on education and training.
    In my part of the country we have Sussex Training, of which I am honoured to be president. It has provided important vocational training for young people, expanding their vocational opportunities, and it has been significantly funded by the employment policies of the Government—not those of a Labour Government. Under Labour the money was not there, and neither were the training opportunities. A Conservative Government have delivered the goods.
    For those reasons, far from Labour's policies being a kick start for the economy, they would be a kick in the teeth for the economy. It is high time that the country and the House realised that the Labour party cannot get away with trying to pretend that its policies would have neutral implications for the taxes that people pay, yet that there would also be a magic crock of gold to be dispensed with the largesse of the sheriff of Nottingham.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), and others, have said, no one could be more conscious of the depth and severity of the recession than those of us who represent seats in the south of England. I know that, especially in the property and construction industries, the recession has been serious in my part of the country.
    That is why I, with Conservative colleagues from Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex and Hampshire, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this week, urging him to consider introducing some relief in the uniform business rate for businesses in our constituencies. I should like to reiterate tonight to my right hon. Friends the reason why I believe that to be necessary.
    Businesses in the south face a combination of the revaluation of their properties at the historical height of the market a few years ago and moving from a lower industrial rating system, under prudent Conservative councils, to a national average rate of poundage which reflects the expenditure of local authorities elsewhere. Even though the Government are rightly introducing, under the Local Government Finance Bill, transitional arrangements to help businesses in areas that have faced such big increases, businesses in the forthcoming year yet again face significant real-terms increases in their uniform business rate at a time when they can least afford it.
    For those reasons, there is a strong case for doing one of two things. The first is to freeze for the forthcoming year the transitional element of the UBR increase, which will especially help those who face increases in excess of 20 per cent. in real terms. The second is to cap the extent to which any UBR increase can rise in real terms in the forthcoming year. That will not only ensure that help is directed to
    394
    businesses in the south which are being hit by the reccession at this time, but will limit the overall yield cost to the Exchequer. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider that.
    Although I make that point and although I am aware of the implications of the recession in my own constituency, I say openly in the House to the Government and to my constituents that I will continue to support the economic policies that the Government have pursued in their determination to reduce the rate of inflation. The real tragedy for our economy has not necessarily been the bantering of party politics and may not even be the differences over planning policies. The real tragedy has been the persistent level of inflation which has so increased the borrowing costs to industry that the profitability of British industry in the north and in the south of England, year after year, has suffered. We must all agree that, whether there have been Labour or Conservative Governments, the profitability of British industry, especially manufacturing industry, has been insufficient and has not begun to compare with that of our competitors.
    If we can get inflation down and interest rates to follow, and if we can pursue policies that will improve the rate of productivity in British industry, the prizes will be glittering, the opportunities for British industry will be outstanding, and the prospects of investment in new technology and the expansion of markets in Europe and elsewhere will be stupendous.
    What if the country took the alternative route, which is a policy of negativism—and that policy, regrettably, seemed to be described by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East? Once again, it seemed to be a policy of talking Britain down. We saw the prophets of gloom and the negativism of the Labour party. That is no part of what I stand for and it offers no prospects for my constituency. That is why we must pursue our policies; that is why we must spell them out clearly to the electorate at the next general election and that is why we shall again receive the mandate that we rightly deserve.
    7.42 pm
    Mr. John Battle: It may be too much to expect that Conservative Members will take the massive scale of unemployment in our society seriously as an economic, social and personal problem. I listened to every word of the speech by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). I do not recall—I will check Hansard—that he uttered the word "unemployment" once in his speech. He suggested that inflation was the tragedy. I suggest to him that most of the people who have experienced economic difficulties for more than 13 years—the whole of this Government's regime—have been the unemployed. I am surprised that Conservative Members cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that unemployment is a major problem in our society.
    In the 15 months since the Prime Minister moved into No. 10, 841,000 people have lost their jobs. That is 3,000 people every day. In 1991 alone, unemployment rose by 700,000. Unemployment has now risen in every consecutive month for the past 22 months to an official rate of almost 2·6 million people. That means that one person in 11 is without a job.
    In my constituency, according to the figures of the Department of Employment, there has been an increase of

    395
    31 per cent. According to the figures before the 30 fiddles and changes, the rate is almost 15 per cent., according to the assessment of the Unemployment Unit. We heard yesterday that the long-term jobless total has risen by 42 per cent. in a year to almost 750,000—the highest level for three years. The number of those unemployed for more than 12 months has risen by 93,000 to 747,000 in the three months to January.
    Young people, especially those in the 18 to 24 age group, bear the brunt of unemployment. The number of claimants aged between 18 and 24 has risen by 35 per cent. in the past year. In the last quarter, the number rose by 21,700 to 147,000—the highest level since October 1988.
    The figures also show a sharp rise in those out of work for more than six months. The figure is up by 136,000 to 1,338,000 in the three months to January. That represents an increase of more than 56 per cent., and it is young people who now face endemic, structural, long-term unemployment. In effect, a generation is being written off, yet the Government claim success for their policies.
    The hon. Member for Chichester claimed that the Government had had great success in their training provision, yet the number of adults who are out of work three months after taking part in the Government's main training programmes continues to increase—by 58 per cent. in 1990–91. Last year, the Treasury tried unsuccessfully to axe the employment training budget and it justified that approach with a forecast that fewer than three out of 10 would find a job after completing the scheme in 1992–93. According to the employment training leavers survey for 1990–91, the proportion out of work after completing the scheme in the north of England and in the west midlands rose to more than 60 per cent. In other words, there are now up to 80,000 young people who are on waiting lists because the Government cannot even honour the guarantee of youth training.
    There has been a shift in strategy by the Government. They have moved away from training the long-term unemployed to giving them short-term work experience. That has been described by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research as "perverse" because of the likely increase in the number of long-term jobless. As was reported in the Financial Times on 28 November, the institute pointed out that in a recession more people enter long-term unemployment and many factors make it harder for them to find jobs than it is for the short-term unemployed. Today, 25 people chase every vacancy; that is the reality. If a person is unfortunate enough to be "liberated" from his job, as the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) put it so casually, his chances of becoming one of the long-term unemployed are very high. Such people are not only marginalised, but effectively written off by the Government.
    Unemployment is a serious social and personal problem. It means lives of hardship, social isolation, multiple debt, and family and personal stress. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer described that increasing human suffering and hopelessness on 16 May 1991 as a "price well worth paying" for the Government's continued economic experiment. The Government, as in education,
    396
    health and the economy, treat our people as if they are specimens in a laboratory who are to be experimented on at every turn to the point of destruction.
    We occasionally hear Conservative noises about the comforting myths, such as the informal economy which means that people out of work will be OK. We are told that the unemployed can always turn to their supporting families when the Government withdraw their social security money. Those myths are constructed to minimise public sensitivity to unemployment. The Government have even had the nerve to limit the period during which the unemployed can claim benefit as if the cure for the problem of long-term joblessness is simply to ensure that people accept any job at any price when it is first offered. If they do not do so, they are crossed off the register.
    As other hon. Members will remember better than I, there was a time during the post-war period, following the publication of Beveridge's "Full Employment in a Free Society" and the earlier work by Keynes, "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money", when the state was committed to tackling the question of providing employment for everyone, and to setting the conditions for steady growth in the economy to achieve full employment and, at the same time, to keep inflation moderate. However, it has to be said that throughout their 13 years the Government have been the Government of unemployment. They have been characterised by higher unemployment than when they took office, when unemployment was 1·3 million. In every year that the Government have been in office, taking the Government's own fiddled figures, unemployment has never been below 1·7 million.
    Even in the so-called boom of the 1980s, what happened? Still one in eight of the labour force were out of work. Admittedly, unemployment dropped a little between 1988 and 1990, but that was merely the result of that old-fashioned consumer spending spree. As Professor Wynne Godley said in New Statesman and Society on 11 January 1991, in a statement backed up by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic survey of 1989–90:
    "The rapid expansion of output … was caused entirely by the largest boom in personal consumption by far that has ever occurred."
    But that short-term boom aside, the 1980s have been characterised by the Government's policy of using high unemployment to introduce cheap labour.
    I close by making two references. In March 1985, the Government published a document entitled "Employment: The Challenge for the Nation". In the same month, they published a similar document entitled "Burdens on Business". What did that document recommend but that wages councils be reduced and eliminated so that wage rates could be driven down? Wage rates have gone down, especially in my area in Yorkshire. Now, in the Government's latest document "People, Jobs and Opportunity", if one reads as far as chapter 7, before which the unemployed do not even feature, one finds yet again a commitment to abolish what is left of the wages councils.
    I believe that the Government are committed to using unemployment as an economic weapon. It is an instrument for introducing lower and lower wages in the false hope that they will attract inward investment. Recently Ministers went to Japan and said, "Come to Britain with the investment, because there the wages are even lower." I

    397
    recently met the ambassador to Korea, who expressed surprise that wage rates in the north of England were lower than those in Korea.
    If that is the Government's economic policy, it holds out little hope for the people of Britain. Only when we have a Labour Government who treat the unemployed seriously and are committed to positive intervention in the labour market, macroeconomic stability and investment in manufacturing industry, the regions and infrastructure, will some hope be offered to the millions of unemployed who have been written off in the years of Conservative government.
    7.51 pm
    Mr. Kenneth Hind: The Labour party's motion simply says that the House
    "calls upon the Government to adopt policies which promote investment, reduce unemployment, and tackle Britain's major training and skills crisis."
    There is an old adage that people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones. I begin with the question that I put to the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). I asked how he thought that increased taxation and national insurance contributions would help to drag Britain out of the recession. Significantly, I had no material response to that question.
    We must recognise that increasing taxation reduces investment. It takes money out of the pockets of the public and reduces their spending capacity. It pushes up interest rates and inflation and, of course, reduces the price of houses, which are the basis of many people's savings and the most important thing that they buy in their life. All in all, increasing taxation amounts to bad news. I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and to the Opposition, that the way forward is not to increase taxation. That will only deepen the recession.
    The way forward is to cut taxation and give industry incentives for capital purchases of machinery. It is to put more money into the pockets of the public, whether by cutting the basic rate of tax, by increasing tax thresholds by more than the rate of inflation, or by other methods, but the certain recipe for disaster is to increase taxation. The public must realise that.
    The problems of unemployment and the recession have been mentioned in the debate. In the north-west, for the first time in my nine years in the House, I see a north-south divide, but it is the reverse of the one in the early 1980s. In my constituency in west Lancashire, where the new town of Skelmersdale has been marked out in the past as a place of high unemployment, unemployment is now 22·5 per cent. lower than when I was last elected, in June 1987.
    The Halifax survey covering 1990 and 1991 shows that, in the housing market in the north-west region, there has been an increase of more than 30 per cent. on average in house values. In the last quarter of 1991, apparently at the height of the recession, there was a 4·1 per cent. increase in the value of our homes. Yes, we are losing jobs, but we are still hanging on to vast amounts of manufacturing jobs. In the north-west, 27 per cent. of our work force is in manufacturing jobs, compared with 23 per cent. in the other regions of Britain.
    I see nothing but disaster if the Labour party, as it has pledged to do, cuts a further £6 billion from the defence budget over and above what is proposed in "Options for Change". There is no comfort in Labour's policies for the
    398
    blue-collar workers of Preston and Warton at British Aerospace, Ferranti, Leyland DAF and throughout the north-west.
    To those who live in glasshouses and throw stones, I say, "Why do you not examine your policies? Let us see whether they will be better than those advocated by the Government." First, interest rates would rise. Most commentators assume that, if Labour were elected, there would be a substantial rise. DKB Bank and the Nomura Research Institute predict a 2 per cent. rise. We also hear from Credit Lyonnais that
    "the higher inflation, borrowing and balance of payments deficit under Labour would push short-term interest rates sharply higher to defend the pound—by up to four points by the end of four years."
    That is from its document, "Life under Labour", dated 1 October 1991.
    Higher interest rates would increase the cost of mortgages, reduce consumer confidence and push down the value of houses. What it would do for the building industry is beyond credibility. The construction industry desperately needs help, but it certainly does not need higher interest rates, which would virtually make it disappear completely. Industry's costs would rise as a result of higher interest rates. In a manufacturing region such as mine, what would happen with the minimum wage and the social chapter? They would make Britain less competitive in the world. As a consequence, we would see less investment, fewer jobs, and lower standards of living in the north-west region and difficulties all round.
    A Japanese industrialist recently called the social chapter "commercial suicide". Yet the Leader of the Opposition will urge us to sign on, despite the problems. We cannot underestimate the effect of the minimum wage. We would probably lose 2 million jobs, large numbers of which would be in the north-west of England. UBS Phillips and Drew states in its "Economic Briefing" of 8 July 1991:
    "in straight economic terms, Labour's minimum pay proposals would be a big blunder".
    That is a great understatement.
    Higher taxes are proposed. The Labour party proposes £37 billion of extra spending. That will inevitably lead to higher rates of taxation for basic rate taxpayers right across the board. That will damage enterprise and inevitably result in a brain drain such as we saw in the 1970s. With free movement in the employment market, people will go to other countries with lower taxes and better standards of living. Labour's spending plans suggest that vastly increased taxes all round will have a strong impact on spending within the community. That will be bad for the economy.
    It is foolish to think that increases in higher rate taxes will increase the amount of tax taken. The tax avoidance industry would come back into operation and the tax take would be lower, as has been proved by experience in the rest of the European Community and in the United States. That can only damage the position in Britain. Inevitably a Labour Chancellor will have to turn to the basic rate taxpayer and ask for increases in the basic rate of taxation.
    Inward investment is the key to our present prosperity. We receive the largest proportion of inward investment in the European Community and jobs are being created. Immediately we signed on for the social chapter of the Maastricht agreement, investment would disappear and go elsewhere, possibly to the Pacific basin. We would never get those jobs back.

    399
    Finally, we must consider Labour's policy of being hand in glove with the trade unions. We must not forget that the trade unions came first and spawned the Labour party. They are its paymasters and, to a large extent, it will do what it is told. That will mean an inevitable return to some of the unpleasant and in many respects damaging trade practices that we consistently swept away through our employment legislation in the 1980s. That would mean fewer jobs, less inward investment, more disruption and a less prosperous Britain.
    Last year, 800,000 working days were lost through strike action, compared with 29 million in 1979. That cannot be of any benefit to the community. The success of the Government's industrial relations policy is an example to the world, and I am afraid that that will be lost.
    We have low inflation, but Labour's policies will result in high inflation. Our interest rates are down 4·5 per cent. in a year. Inflation is down. We have record exports and an increasing share of world manufacturing trade. We are spending £2·8 billion on training, and industry is spending £20 billion. One in four of our students go into higher education—it was one in eight in 1979—and we are heading for one in three. Those policies, and not the policies advocated by the Labour party, will bring Britain out of recession.
    We should listen to the managing director of Coats Viyella who has said that, if Labour comes to power with its minimum wage, 11,000 jobs will disappear overnight. How many more will follow? The public must realise that they have no future under Labour. All they will have is Labour's hand in their pockets.
    8.2 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The most interesting aspect of today's debate was the extraordinary speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment. On a personal level, I do not begrudge him his parliamentary success but Conservative Members, especially those on the Front Bench, may take a different attitude, especially when the Conservative party has lost the next election and the leadership stakes begin to shape up. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was all about that and had nothing to do with the disastrous situation which 13 years of Tory government have caused the country and its economy.
    It is hard to see how the Secretary of State could have made a different speech. He would have been indulging in a classic recantation if he had attempted a sustained or reasoned defence of Government policies and achievements in the past 13 years. It would have been a total recantation of everything that he has stood for in his political life. It would have been a specific recantation of his remarkable speech to the Tory Reform group two years ago, when he was unfettered by Government office and unshackled by the failures of the Government with whom he finds himself inextricably entwined—probably to his regret.
    If I take five or six of the main points from that speech and compare them with what the Government have done, hon. Members will realise the sort of problems that the Secretary of State would have faced had he tried to defend those policies. First, he described the inadequacy—both in volume and character—of Conservative training
    400
    programmes. What has happened since then? Recently they have been hacked further to pieces, and the Government have been concentrating more and more on people at the bottom of the skills table.
    Another issue to which the Secretary of State graphically referred in his speech to the Tory Reform Group was education and our comparative inadequacies within the European scene—our failure to perform, compared with the achievements of Japan. What has happened? What has been the Government's most indicative action to ensure that education standards are maintained—let us not speak of an improvement? The Tory Government's reaction has been to privatise the inspectorate. Could there be a more pathetic or more irrelevant reaction to a great national problem?
    Thirdly, the Secretary of State referred to the attractions of a development agency for England. Present Tory policies show a pathological hatred of any sort of regional development policy—a hatred which is bringing us to the point where, because of their antagonism to Scottish feelings, they are hell bent on the annihilation of the Tory party in Scotland. That seems to be a perverse policy. If it were pursued—thank heavens that that will not be allowed—it would threaten the very Union.
    Those are three significant areas in which Government policy has been disastrous for the nation. The Secretary of State exposed them about two years ago before he took office and so we could not expect him to defend them today.
    Let us consider three other interlinked areas which Labour Members agree are vital to economic success: the overriding importance of manufacturing; the balance of payments as the essential criterion to determine economic and industrial success; and, if one accepts those two overriding priorities, their inescapable implications for the exchange rate mechanism, the value of sterling and the other currencies within it. I mention the latter in the same context as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned it earlier.
    I shall not bore the House at this late stage with all the essential figures, which have been rehearsed. They simply point to the fact that we have the worst record among our major competitors for manufacturing output and investment. There are no two ways about it. Even on a partisan occasion such as this I would go so far as to say that British Governments have had to wrestle with that deep-rooted problem.
    However, the Government's policies have been marked, first, by their malign neglect of that problem and now by their benign neglect of it. They have never really set out to deal with our manufacturing problems. As a result, they have managed to heap £70 billion of foreign exchange debt on the shoulders of people in this country in the past four years. What sort of achievement is that?
    It is no good talking about productivity increases and our increased share of world trade. The latter is an indictor, but the ultimate determinant is the balance between imports and exports. That alone tells us whether we are succeeding as a nation. It is clear from the Government's record that there is no way that it can be called anything other than a calamitous defeat for our industry. That has been brought about by the combination of perverse economic policies carried out by the Tory Administration.
    Even in the past two years, while the country has been moving towards recession—and has been in recession for

    401
    the past 18 months—the Government have managed to achieve a £10 billion deficit in our balance of payments, which is amazing. One could expect that to happen during a boom, if we were trying to encourage an investment boom, or in most other circumstances except for recession, and we are in the longest recession since the second world war. Conservative Members are still using the absurd argument that the whole world is in recession.
    It may be true that there has been a slowdown in world trade. However, in 1990–91 most of the major world markets enjoyed solid growth in trade, except the United Kingdom. The fact that there is now a general slowdown in world trade means that our recession, which is already the longest in our post-war history, will last even longer.
    The Government may argue that they are doing everything right and that everyone is experiencing recession, but surely action should be taken now. Action should be taken to help the construction industry, but, unfortunately, the Conservative party cannot forget its hidebound, ingrained dislike of any form of public sector investment. My constituency is in the west midlands where the car industry is in great need of help. The 10 per cent. special car tax could be scrapped. Even some Conservative Members have argued that the business rate should be reduced. I also believe that 50 per cent. capital allowances should be restored. All those steps could be taken, but they will not be. We know that, because of the Government's incompetence, the recession will be allowed to drag on, which means that our people will suffer unhappiness and destitution for even longer.
    It has been argued that the people do not yet blame the Conservative party for the recession, but it is the Government's incompetence that has brought us to this. I shall argue that point day in, day out up to the next election. I believe that we will win the argument. The Prime Minister may profess his concern. That is fine, but nothing can condone his professional incompetence.
    I believe that the people will come to see that we need a Labour Government with policies that are designed to restore a sense of purpose and the correct order of priorities necessary to rebuild the country arid its economy.
    8.11 pm
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I owe you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House an apology for having been absent for much of the debate, because I am a member of the Committee on the Further and Higher Education Bill. I was particularly keen to speak in this debate because I wanted to expose the extraordinary argument advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), whose speech I was able to hear.
    One of the great advantages of coming in and out of a debate is that one can gauge the reaction of the media and hon. Members to what has been said so far. It is clear that there is agreement on both sides of the House about the fact that this is a deep and difficult recession. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) recognised, if somewhat opaquely, that the recession is international. Surely he has seen the irrefutable evidence from Germany and America to demonstrate the international nature of that recession. Both those countries are important to other European economies, and their experience demonstrates that one cannot say that the recession has been made in Britain.
    402
    The comments that I have heard about the debate have made me realise the grave difficulty in which the Opposition have landed themselves. The nature of the recession requires the policies that the Government have been pursuing as they will bring about the upturn that will undoubtedly come. Hard and harsh though the recession is, our policies are the right ones, and they will be successful.
    It is equally clear that the Labour party crafted the policies that it wanted to implement in the unlikely event of winning the election at a different point in the economic cycle from that which we face today. How on earth can any party hope to be treated with any economic respect when, in the teeth of a difficult recession, it intends to raise taxation? No respectable economist would ever suggest that raising taxes would do anything but make the recession worse. In fact, the great danger is that it could lead to a double-dip recession. That would be the result if the Opposition's policies were followed.
    Dr. John Marek: I accept that, on the normal definition, Germany is marginally in recession. There are various reasons for that. It also faces the obvious difficulty of having to deal with the problems of East Germany. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me of another Community member state, besides the United Kingdom, that is in recession.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is as capable as I am of reading the statistics of economic trends in other countries. He accepts that Germany is marginally in recession; therefore, he is arguing my precise point. Germany is in recession and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Secretary will demonstrate that it is an international one.
    When mistakes were made in 1987, the Labour party offered advice on how to deal with the difficulties that the economy faced. If we had followed it, the recession would have been much worse and more difficult to contend with. Judgment had to be exercised by the Government about what to do with interest rates, and at that very point the policy of the Labour party, as described in the Chamber and in speech after speech by the Leader of the Opposition, was that interest rates should be cut further. With hindsight, it is clear that that was entirely the wrong answer. What a good thing for the country and for our business men that the Leader of the Opposition's policies were not followed by the Treasury.
    Our policies are the right ones to get us out of the recession. It will be a long and difficult process, and I accept that, in many constituencies, the consequences have been tough for those with small businesses. The only long-term solution is one that leads to low inflation, stable growth and competitiveness. We have pursued the policies designed to achieve that. We have the guts to stick to our guns to ensure that, when the upturn comes, it is real rather than the illusory type which is the speciality of file Labour party.
    The extent to which the Labour party is boxed in because it composed its policies at a different point in the economic cycle is truly enormous. Apart from the Opposition's stated intention of raising taxes in a recession, one must also consider what would happen to the 180,000 teachers who earn more than £20,280 per annum. They would be faced with an immediate tax increase. Do the Opposition really believe that teachers are

    403
    overpaid? Do they want to cut their take-home pay just when the Government have demonstrated their support for teachers and when the pay review body has now ensured that they are better rewarded?
    Hamish McRae argued persuasively in The Independent that, if the Opposition's policies were implemented at this point in the economic cycle, they would threaten the housing market, which is in an extremely delicate state. He also argued that their policies would cause grave damage to the economy and threaten the income of those who, because of the recent reductions in interest rates, have a little more spending money and greater ability to meet the cost of their home loan. Those advantages would be prejudiced by the taxation policies of the Opposition.
    We cannot even get a straight answer from the Opposition on their taxation policies. Would they or would they not immediately abolish the higher threshold on national insurance? We get one answer from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), another from the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and yet another from the shadow Chancellor. Millions of people need to know the answer, but they have not had it from the Opposition. Why should redundant miners in Nottinghamshire see the redundancy money that they have earned threatened by a savings tax, as proposed by the Opposition? Many former miners in my constituency want to know the answer.
    When will we get an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) about the minimum wage? The Labour party claims to be concerned about unemployment, and it is truly extraordinary that it should put forward the fatuous and bizarre policy of a minimum wage.
    Dr. Marek: I will not comment upon the minimum wage, but as for lifting the cut-off point for national insurance contributions, we will consult with the civil service to see how that could be done easily. We have made that commitment. The hon. Gentleman should also note that no one who is earning less than £21,000 a year will pay a single penny extra tax as a result of our policies.
    Mr. Mitchell: Why will the hon. Gentleman not answer our questions about the minimum wage? He simply said that he would rather ignore the whole issue. I gather from his other remarks—I shall have to read what he said in the Official Report—that we have a fourth version of Labour's plans for national insurance. That must be added to the three versions which I outlined. In other words, we are no less confused than before the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He might also have commented on the whole issue of the taxation of pensioners' nest eggs. When will we get a straight answer from the Labour party on that and many other taxation matters?
    A hard and severe struggle is being faced by many unemployed people in my constituency and elsewhere. My party is committed to offering long-term hope to the unemployed by pursuing policies of low inflation and stable growth. Under Labour, we would have just pious words and platitudes, with a short-term fix and a long-term return to the trend of higher unemployment. That is why every Labour Government have seen an increase in the level of unemployment on leaving office compared with when taking office.
    404
    Although Opposition Members are full of good intentions, their actions do not measure up to the harsh and tough policies that must be taken if unemployment is to be conquered and fuller employment is to return. Britain has more people in employment as a percentage of its population than any other European country, apart from Denmark.
    In a number of areas Labour Members tentatively recognise the new realities of competition, free enterprise rather than nationalisation, and central planning, but they do not embrace them. They have abandoned principles held since 1945 and earlier by their party and have adopted a new set of principles which they believe will inveigle the electorate into giving them the keys to Downing street. They cannot get away with that.
    We are the party of free enterprise. We brought about huge changes throughout the 1980s in the supply side of the economy. That is why the Prime Minister will still be occupying his position on the Government Front Bench after the general election, whenever it occurs.
    8.22 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for warming up the House for me. It is clear that the name A. Mitchell appearing on the television screens all over the Palace has brought Members flooding into the Chamber. Even so, I will not follow the line taken by the hon. Gentleman, because it was typical of the performance of his hon. Friends in the debate. They have adduced two arguments only—that it is a world recession, and that the Labour party in power would make it worse. That was put over as a knockabout turn by the Secretary of State and as a more serious exercise, at a higher intellectual level, by the hon. Member for Gedling.
    But both arguments are fallacious, particularly the claim that we are in a world recession. It does not explain why this country went into recession earlier and is in deeper now, making it harder here. The answer is that the recession is a direct consequence of Government policy. The Conservatives came to power and installed massive deflation in the first three years, the results of which closed down about a quarter of Britain's manufacturing capacity, with a huge loss of jobs.
    They followed that with a kind of North sea bubble in which rising asset prices and looser credit pursued each other, so that one inflated the other. That inflated demand. British manufacturing, which had been decimated in the recession, could not cope with it. Imports were sucked in and inflation developed. In that situation the Government panic and start damping down. The cause of the recession has been the Government's attempt to damp down the consequences of their own folly. In doing that, they deliberately meant their measures to be painful.
    "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working,"
    the present Prime Minister told us. The Government's chosen instrument, they told us, would hurt, and it has. The pain is being felt all over the country. It is acute in Grimsby. It is terrible to se our constituencies bleeding with the loss of jobs, with industries closing, with people being thrown out of work and their houses being repossessed. That is all happening because of the Government's policies.
    They have added to those consequences by nailing the lid down on the recession, because, as they began their punitive measures, they entered the exchange rate

    405
    mechanism with the pound high and with interest rates at an unnaturally high level. The pound was high because the economy was being deflated, so they nailed the lid down on the deflation. The present Prime Minister took office and with his decisive, firm, tough, aggressive manner bullied the weak and wilting previous Prime Minister into joining the ERM against her better judgment. We are now seeing the consequences of that.
    It is a mistake to have a fixed exchange rate because the exchange rate is a market clearing mechanism which must change with circumstances. It is a heightened mistake to tie our exchange rate to that of a major competitor, and thus tie our economic cycle, which is different from its, because we are forced to act on its behalf. It is a folly to make changes in the exchange rate subject to the consent and agreement of competitors who have a vested interest in seeing our exchange rate over-valued because it safeguards their access to our market.
    That is a folly, but it is a disaster to do all that at an over-valued rate, which is what we did. The rate was high and it has got higher since, because our inflation has been higher. Other economies have increased their productivity and productive power and are therefore in a more powerful position. So the gap has widened and the pound is now grossly over-valued in that situation.
    The currency of a nation must be over-valued if that nation is in continuous and sustained deficit, especially in a recession. It is a horrendous symptom of industrial weakness, but it is also a symptom of the exchange rate being over-valued. It is clear that this deficit requires a devaluation. It is not a matter of morality. It just must happen. The United States faced a similar deficit in 1985. The dollar has come down by about 40 per cent. and the pound must come down, too. It is the only way open to us; otherwise, we are faced with long-term deflation which will be devastating for industry and jobs, which will take years rather than months to carry out and which will undermine permanently the competitive power of our economy.
    Deflation is the only alternative to devaluation, so devaluation is the only way out. We cannot lower interest rates because of the ERM, but if we did, it would not achieve anything unless our industries were competitive, making our exports competitive. If, as some hon. Members have suggested, the Government borrowed to cut taxes in the budget, the money thereby pumped out would simply wash overseas at this level of over-valuation. It would suck in imports rather than having a beneficial effect. The multiplier has gone to live in Germany, and it is as simple as that.
    We in Britain must increase demand and channel it to British industry by a competitive exchange rate. That is the only way to increase profitability. It is a question of allowing British industry to make a profit, enabling it to produce and invest in this country. The profitability of our manufacturing has been consistently lower than that of its competitors and of sheltered industry. The position must be redressed in favour of British manufacturing.
    The exports of British industry are not profitable at the moment. We are exporting, but we are doing so by throwing overboard research, design, development, investment, jobs—anything—just to keep going. But many of those exports are not profitable. So there must be a devaluation, and it must he substantial.
    That brings us to the heart of the problem. We cannot devalue, we are told, because of our membership of the ERM. In other words we cannot recover because we are
    406
    not allowed to do so. We would be accused of being uncommunautaire if we were to devalue in the ERM, or came out of the mechanism and devalued. So jobs are being lost, factories are being closed and houses are being repossessed to show what good Europeans we are and to demonstrate our commitment to an ERM which is not in the interests of this country.
    That is the essence of the argument, and it means that deflation will go on, because there is no way out of it. We shall have the same sustained deflation as France and Italy had in the 1980s, with the same consequences on employment, with rising Government expenditure, with diminishing Government receipts as profits and jobs go down, and with an increasing Government deficit. That is the inevitable consequence. Everything will have to be cut simply to allow us to stay in the ERM. It will be a disaster for this country. The British people are not being told that all this is being done for the exchange rate mechanism. If they were told the truth, their answer could be summed up in three words, two of which would be "the ERM".
    Deflation is becoming a way of life, and it is horrifying to see it as an orthodoxy from all three main parties, all the pundits, the CBI and the Bank of England. They all say the same thing and they are all wrong. The only way to revive the economy is to devalue, as happened in the 1920s when Churchill took us back to gold standards—an over-valued rate—and Keynes wrote about "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill". The same could be written now, entitled "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Major".
    The depression will go on unless we devalue. We must have a competitive exporting industry. I am happy to see the Conservatives go down chanting the mantra that pain is good, decline is growth and ruin is improvement. It could not have happened to a nicer party. However, I do not want Labour to break itself in government on the altar of a financial orthodoxy that is not mine. I am not in politics to make Europe fit for central bankers to rule in. I am in politics to improve the lot of the people, to generate jobs, growth and expansion—all the measures which make people's lives better and which, in turn, generate public spending to improve the quality of that life. We cannot do that unless we devalue.
    We must swing back the balance that over-valuation, for a prolonged period, has pushed in directions that are damaging to the people. We must move those balances back from investment overseas to investment in this country, from imports to production, and from wealth to work. We must make money cheap and people dear, not the other way round as it is at present.
    8.32 pm
    Mr. Stephen Day: I respect the principles and the well-argued standpoint of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), although I do not agree with him. At least he has a principled viewpoint, which cannot be said for the views on Europe of the Opposition Front Bench.
    No one denies that the economy faces serious difficulties,. The problem is to convince the Opposition that our troubles are being experienced, to some degree, elsewhere. I set great store by what my constituents tell me, and some interesting observations arise from that exercise. The mood of the average business man in my constituency —[Interruption.] If hon. Members will wait, I shall tell

    407
    them precisely what it is. My constituents realise that they are experiencing great difficulties, and I could not describe them as particularly happy. I understand that, but the greatest factor that comes through when I speak to them is that of fear—not fear of the recession, but fear of the election of a Labour Government.
    I do not believe that it will be possible—I hope that it is—for us to witness real signs of recovery this side of a general election, for the simple reason that that fear manifests itself in the business community's belief that it is not safe to invest in their businesses with that ever-present threat. The only way that we shall see the economy move forward is for the general election to be held and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to be returned to No. 10, as I am confident that he will be.
    I invite Opposition Members to come to my constituency and witness the fear of the business community. It would be refreshing for Opposition Members to see a part of the country that has the good sense to have only 9 per cent. of the electorate voting for the Labour party. If they came to my constituency, they would find a very different mood from the one that they think prevails throughout the country. My constituents remember only too well what life was like under a Labour Government, before the Conservatives came to power in 1979, and they do not want to return to that scenario. Again, that is a strong feeling that I get from my constituents.
    The Labour party has a recipe for everything, and it is the same now as it has always been: if there is a problem, throw money at it. It does not ask where the money comes from or whether it will be used effectively, but simply throws it at the problem. On every issue that the Labour party deals with, its answer is that wonderful word "resources". Anybody who understands that word knows that resources are finite. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would do himself and his party a favour if he began to understand the basic meaning of an important word that the Labour party uses regularly but does not seem to understand.
    A classic example can be found in one of the most important areas of the economy—the national health service. It is important to the economy because it employs so many people. Indeed, it is the largest employer in the country.
    Mr. David Evans: It employs a million people.
    Mr. Day: As my hon. Friend says, it employs a million people, so it is larger than the red army, when that was intact.
    Labour constantly says that it would spend more money on the national health service, but where is the evidence? When the last Labour Government were in power, it was the only time when the NHS suffered actual cuts in spending—yet the Labour party claims to be the defender of the health service. The same would happen again because we hear the same rhetoric.
    The Labour party says that it would spend more on roads, education, training and everything else, but it never asks where the money will come from, never daring to admit where it will come from. It cons the public into believing that the money will be found through systems of taxation that will affect no one, yet Labour Members think
    408
    that people will vote for them. What nonsense—the British people will not fall for that, and the nearer we get to an election the more that will become self-evident.
    Cheadle is a prosperous constituency, but it suffers some difficulties at present. One of its difficulties concerns the British Aerospace plant at Woodford. We all know that the difficulties of British Aerospace have much to do with the so-called "peace dividend". At Woodford, however, that is not precisely the case, because Woodford is successfully engaged in the production of the 146—the so-called "silent jet". Although I am sincerely upset for all those who have lost their jobs in other parts of the country, I am pleased that we have managed to limit job losses in Woodford to just 70. I readily accept that that is no comfort to the 70 people who have lost their jobs. I shall visit the plant on Friday to discuss how the management will implement job cuts, and I hope that there will be no enforced redundancies.
    Interestingly, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East cannot accept that there is a world recession. He should come with me on Friday to meet the management at Woodford. He would then find out that the reason for those 70 job cuts is that there has been a collapse in aircraft sales in the United States. The airline industry is in recession and the market is in decline. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no world recession and that our problems are all caused by the Government. He is living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
    One aspect of his accusation is particularly offensive. When there is a total reluctance to accept what is manifestly the case and people are suffering from it, how on earth can the Opposition hope to deal with the issue and provide policies that will help people to avoid the situation that those 70 people at Woodford now face? The Opposition find it easier and more politically acceptable to use that misery and suffering as a stick to beat the Government. It is a question of cheap votes, and, coming from a party that says it wishes to rule this country, that is extremely depressing. I am sure that for that reason, among others, that will not happen.
    We have heard today another argument put forward by those who say that there is no world recession and no recession in the United States. I should like to hear in the Opposition's winding-up speech an explanation of the difficulty in which President Bush finds himself on the domestic front because of the recession in the United States. Everywhere he goes, he gets into trouble about the recession—the recession which does not exist. Perhaps Opposition Members should go and explain to President Bush that his worries are ill-founded, that there is no recession in the United States. On the other hand, any hon. Member doing so would learn something and would come back with a recognition of the realities of the world—in particular, the realities of the economy of the United States and of the British economy.
    No one can deny that we are deep in recession, but we have laid the groundwork for progress when the upturn comes. Companies are more competitive, and we have seen loss-making nationalised industries turned into profit-making industries. In the British economy, we have the basis for progress within Europe and the rest of the world. I am proud to say that for many years I was a member of the Institute of Export. Before coming to this House, I was involved in selling products abroad. We owe a great debt to our exporters. Those firms recognise that, if they are to continue to compete, if they are to continue to be a great

    409
    credit to their industries and to this country, the last thing that is needed is the election of the Labour party, which has no grasp whatever of what is required for Britain's future.
    8.42 pm
    Mr. John McAllion: At the beginning of this debate we witnessed a spectacle on the Government Benches and heard from the Secretary of State for the Environment a speech that summed up quite brilliantly why the current Government have no friends in my country—Scotland—and fewer and fewer friends south of the border. In all the nauseating point-scoring of the Secretary of skate—"skate" is a good word, but I mean the Secretary of State—we heard nothing at all offering one scintilla of hope to the millions of our fellow-citizens who are without work and without homes and who will be without any kind of economic prospects while the Conservative Government waste their time in office.
    The Secretary of State's knowledge of Scotland is so limited that he believes that in Scotland there is a place called Edinburgh, Monklands. The fact that Edinburgh is the Scottish capital on the east coast, while Monklands is in Lanarkshire on the west coast, was totally lost on the Secretary of State, yet this man purports to be a senior Minister in a Government charged with responsibility for running Scotland. He could not even find Scotland unless someone took him by the hand and showed him where it was.
    His ignorance of Scotland is so pervasive that he is undoubtedly equally ignorant of a crisis facing a company in my constituency this very evening. I refer to Alma Holdings, which manufactures confectionery. The firm employs about 300 people in Dundee, and hundreds more across the Tay in Fife, in Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes. Tonight Alma Holdings has been forced to call in the receiver as a result of the mother and father of economic recessions, which has been caused by the present Government's policies.
    It is in recessionary times such as these that belts have to be tightened and spending has to be cut. It is in recessionary times such as these that the public stops buying the kind of confectionery that Alma Holdings produces. If that company is not selling, it is not earning; if it is not earning, it is not able to sustain employment as it has in the past. That is why the receiver has had to be called in. Such is the reality facing people trying to run businesses while the Conservative Government are in office. It is entirely remote from empty rhetoric such as we have heard from Government Members during this debate.
    We are now in an infinitely worse economic situation that the country faced in 1979, when the Tory Opposition claimed that Labour Britain "wasn't working". The current Prime Minister took part in that campaign nearly 13 years ago. Like every other Tory taking part in that campaign, he had no misgivings whatsoever about blaming the then economic troubles on the then Labour Government. He did not then mouth weak excuses such as are now trotted out by Ministers. At that time we heard from the Conservatives nothing about the battle against inflation. We did not then hear Tory Members say that "if it isn't hurting, it isn't working", or that it is a price worth paying. There were no such words back in 1979. Then the
    410
    situation was simple and straightforward to them: there was mass unemployment and there was a Labour Government, and the first was caused by the second.
    Now, 13 years later, we have twice and three times the 1979 level of mass unemployment. Why are the Tories not now doing what they did then? Why are they not blaming the situation on the elected Government? Why the inconsistency? Perhaps consistency is not something that the public have come to expect from political parties, but, given the circumstances that now face this country—recession and mass unemployment—a little humility would not be out of place. We might hear a note of regret about the suffering of the millions in the dole queues and of their families.
    There might even be a little remorse about the million more who are trapped into poverty wages as a result of the Government's deliberate policy, perhaps even a little shame that, after 13 years of Tory government, almost one quarter of Europe's 50 million poor live in Britain. Given these appalling circumstances, we should not be asking too much if we were to expect the Government to begin to recognise that perhaps—just perhaps—they got it wrong in the past and that it might be time to change their economic policies.
    In the Government's amendment to the Opposition's motion, there is no sign whatsoever of recognition that the Tories may have made mistakes. In fact, the Government, in the amendment, congratulate themselves on what they call success. Success? Millions of families throughout this country must be saying to themselves tonight, "If this is success, God preserve us from failure." The amendment goes on to boast about what the Government call the foundations for economic recovery, which we are told have now been firmly laid. "Foundations for economic recovery" is yet another euphemism for throwing millions of people out of work for the purpose of deflating the economy and bringing inflation under control.
    The foundations for economic recovery were supposed to have been laid at the end of the last Tory recession in the early 1980s. We were told then that the price had been paid for the breakthrough that would sustain economic recovery. In fact, we were told that such a breakthrough had been achieved. At that time, the Tories liked to call ut the British economic miracle. It was the high point of the then rising tide of Thatcherism, the pinnacle of the achievements of the then Tory Chancellor, whom the Prime Minister called "my brilliant, brilliant Chancellor".
    Of course, both of them have now gone, and neither is lamented in any way by Labour Members. But their skeletons are still rattling very loudly in the cupboards of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister, who at that time was their protege and owed his personal advancement to their sponsorship. Now the Prime Minister does not give them a second glance. He tries to place the maximum distance between himself and their political heritage before facing the British people in a general election. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) might never have existed. Indeed, I am sure that he sometimes wishes that they had never existed.
    But exist they did, and so does the economic damage that they inflicted upon the British people. If the Tories think that, by ditching those two individuals, they have absolved themselves of responsibility for 13 wasted Tory years, they are very sadly mistaken. It was not this or that

    411
    individual who foisted upon the British people the ghastly experiment of monetarism; it was not this or that individual who forced through the poll tax in defiance of public opinion. It was each and every Tory Member of Parliament who, throughout those 13 years, knowingly gave their support.
    Chief among those, of course, was the present Prime Minister, who was the most loyal supporter of the Government at that time—until it was in his personal interests to cease his support. In every sense of the word, the right hon. Gentleman was a right honourable rat deserting a sinking ship.
    The flagship has sunk and pulled down its captain. It is now the turn of the rest of the crew who are beginning to sing a slightly different economic tune. They say that it is all the fault of a global economic crisis and nothing to do with the British Government. They say that Germany, Japan and the United States are all at the mercy of huge, international and impersonal economic forces that are sweeping the world and leaving in their wake international recession and mass unemployment.
    In their desperation, the Tories are beginning to sound like so many Trotskyists as they say that it is all the fault of capitalism, and nothing can be done by any elected Government. Capitalism is cyclical—bust follows boom just as boom follows bust—and contained within capitalism are the destructive seeds of inevitable recession and mass unemployment. That is the logic of the Government's argument. They are saying that, if we want to put an end to economic recession and mass unemployment, and break through to a sustained economic recovery, we must first destroy capitalism, as it contains seeds that cannot be removed. I would not wish to quarrel with that argument, but I find it strange coming from Conservatives.
    The truth is that something can be done: a programme of Government action and investment as outlined by my right hon. and hon. Friends in today's debate. Capital allowances would encourage investment to improve this country's transport and infrastructure, and we could introduce special employment measures. However, the suggestions all come from Labour Members.
    One of the key reforms that must be implemented if we are to break away from the present problems is constitutional reform. Within this country, a political state is developing that is so skewed by the dominance of southern constituencies that is now possible for a Tory Government to be elected on the back of southern votes and pursue policies targeted solely in the interests of people living in the southern half of the country. That policy cannot bring economic prosperity to the whole of the United Kingdom. If the Tory Government are re-elected after the next general election and they persist with that policy, the United Kingdom could be put at risk.
    8.54 pm
    Mr. Christopher Gill: We have had a most interesting debate. Of all the speeches made, I wish to single out that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He tempts me to engage in a debate with him on competitive exchange rates, as he came over as a powerful advocate of floating exchange rates. However, I shall resist that temptation and latch on to something else
    412
    that he said. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the reaction from Conservative Members had been entirely typical. I shall return that compliment: in many instances, the reaction of Opposition Members was equally typical.
    One feature of such debates is their predictability. People with no experience of employing people talk about unemployment, and people with absolutely no ideas and no visions for the future talk about the recession. The stock answer from the Opposition on so many issues is more public spending—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) in his most interesting and robust contribution. The Opposition advocate more spending on just about everything in the public sector. That argument stands up only if they are prepared to recognise that the money has to come from somewhere.
    The question I want the Opposition to answer— perhaps the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will provide an answer when he winds up—is this: if they have their way and all the additional money is found for health, education, infrastructure and all the other attributes of the state, what will be left for investment?
    There is an enormous contradiction—a great inconsistency—in the argument of the Labour party. It says that it wants more investment in industry and in the wealth-creating sector—although it does not call it that, as it does not recognise trade and industry and commerce as a wealth-creating sector—but it also says that there should be more money for the public sector. It does not say where the money for the essential investment in the private sector and industry will come from. Will there be any money left in the pockets of the private investor if the Labour party comes to power?
    Mr. David Evans: No.
    Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend confirms my worst fears. There would be no money left for investment under a Labour Government.
    In an interesting speech last night, which I commend to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn, Hatfield, (Mr. Evans) took us down what he described as memory lane, and recited all the obstacles that previous Labour Governments had put in the way of entrepreneurs. The Labour party would do the same again were it to come to power, as its only answer to any problem is more regulation, more intervention and more regional policies —in short, preventing managers from managing, business men from running their own businesses and, as the nation now recognises, imposing higher taxes.
    I should like to say in the strongest possible terms what an enormous achievement it is, and what great credit it reflects on the Government that, in a decade when hundreds of thousands of men have lost their jobs in the traditional labour-intensive industries, they have been redeployed in real jobs in the wealth-creating sector. As well as being a tribute to our Government and their policies, that is a tribute to the resilience and competence of United Kingdom employers.
    How have we created those real jobs? We have done so simply through lower taxes, more realistic labour relations, deregulation, the encouragement of wealth creation and the development of a climate for investment and risk taking.
    The Labour party can talk as long as it likes about throwing money at job creation, but neither it nor the public can create real jobs. The only people who can create

    413
    real, lasting, rewarding jobs are employers. I have not heard that word used once in the debate—certainly not by any Opposition Members. Employers—entrepreneurs—will identify market opportunities and make the products to fill them. They will do so at a price that the customer can afford, which will be reflected in the profits of their businesses and the prosperity of their employees.
    I have been critical of the Opposition for having no vision of the future. I want to give my right hon. Friend the Minister an idea. He may have noticed within the last 24 hours the comments of the director general of the Institute of Directors, who has, correctly analysed one deficiency in our economy. He has identified a dearth of medium-sized independent companies. That is a weakness of our economy compared with the Japanese and German economies—in other words, the countries which represent our strongest competition.
    I commend to my right hon. Friend the importance of encouraging medium-sized independent companies. He should spend some time considering what encouraging such companies would do to the economy. Many criticisms have been made of the economy today because of its short-term view. There are many reasons for that —our tax regime being one of them. I should like to sow in my right hon. Friend's mind the seed that he should do all that he can to encourage medium-sized independent or private businesses because of their ability to introduce stability and a longer-term view of industry into the economy.
    All of that is anathema to the Labour party. It is envious and exhibits hatred of successful families and successful businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) identified that in his splendid speech. He drew the correct conclusion: that the great British public will recognise that fact when they vote in the general election. I too have no doubt that when they make that analysis, they will vote Conservative and return this Government.
    9 pm
    Mr. Keith Vaz: I make no apology for raising yet again in the House the plight of the victims of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. I do so because, as the Government are aware, the closure of the bank last year and its subsequent liquidation on 14 January this year have had and will have an effect on the economy. Unless the Government take firm, corrective action in the next few days, some of the depositors and creditors will not be able to continue their normal and basic commercial activities because of what has happened since liquidation. Some of those people are constituents of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; indeed, the largest single depositor is a constituent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    As we know, when the bank was put into provisional liquidation, the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi announced that he could no longer keep on staff. Therefore, as of the end of last year, 1,200 people who were in full-time employment in the bank were put on the dole. There was no substantial compensation scheme for them. Many of them have written to me since the closure of the bank to say that despite their best endeavours they have been unable to find jobs. Many have cited comments by the Governor of the Bank of England about the nature of BCCI as the reason why they have been unable to find employment.
    414
    When the bank went into liquidation on 14 January, that was supposed to trigger the deposit protection scheme. Last year, on 8 July, when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made to the House the statement which the Chancellor could not have made, he said that the closure of the bank would trigger the operation of the scheme, and that those with over £20,000 on deposit would be able to get a maximum of £15,000. That has not materialised.
    Since my meeting with the Bank of England a few weeks ago, it has become clear that no payments will be made from the deposit protection fund until the liquidators have circulated a proof of debt form to the 40,000 depositors of BCCI resident in this country. Therefore, the payments of many businesses, which have borrowed over the last seven months in anticipation of getting money under the deposit protection scheme, will have to wait.
    A promise was made to the High Court last December that by 14 January the compensation scheme, which was the result of negotiations between the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi and the liquidators, would be published. Despite that promise, the scheme has still not been published, and the anxiety, distress and concern of the thousands of depositors in this country and abroad are obvious. Almost seven months after the bank went into provisional liquidation, they have no means of knowing precisely how much money they will get.
    Indeed, a report in The Independent today said that some depositors from Gibraltar, who have lost up to £96 million, have decided to come back to Britain because their money is frozen, they do not have any benefit scheme in Gibraltar and there is no equivalent to the deposit protection scheme there. Their arrival in this country will add to our economic problems.
    All this can be sorted out if the Government take corrective action. I should like the Chief Secretary to say that he is prepared on behalf of the Government to write to the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi and the liquidators to ask them when their plan will be published. We have seen newspaper reports that the depositors may get a compensation scheme worth up to $2·2 billion. None of those reports has been corrected or confirmed by the liquidators.
    Seven months after the provisional liquidation of the bank, the creditors have still not met to formally agree to the appointment of the liquidators. As the Minister will know, the four liquidators were appointed on 14 January as a result of faxes sent from the official receiver and received at the Department of Trade and Industry at 12.57 on 14 January, and a fax was sent back at 13.09, when the four liquidators were appointed. No creditors meeting has taken place. I do not want to cast aspertions on the character or performance of the four liquidators. I happen to think that both Christopher Morris and Brian Smouhar, the joint provisional liquidators, have acted properly and worked diligently trying to make sure that the negotiations proceed.
    The principle here is important: the liquidators have received millions of pounds for their professional fees from this bank. It is only right that the creditors should meet at the earliest opportunity to endorse their actions. I understand that the liquidators are unhappy about such a meeting because they say that it is impossible to circulate 400,000 depositors with notice of a meeting—and that they would have to hire a very large hall if all the creditors turned up. My view is that, if it is possible for companies

    415
    like ICI to circulate their large number of shareholders, it is quite possible for the liquidators to circulate a notice to all the creditors.
    It is vital that the liquidators call this meeting so as to be legitimised. Now that the decision rests with the Department of Trade and Industry, and now that the decision has been taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to appoint the liquidators, an early intervention is necessary to ensure that such a meeting is held.
    It is also important that the liquidators be told of the need to proceed as a matter of urgency with writing to the depositors in this country—those who are protected by the deposit protection scheme—to enable the compensation payments to be made under that scheme. The Bank of England has told me that, on receipt of a certificate from the liquidators, it will make its payments under the deposit protection scheme within three days. The Bank tells me that it has been waiting to make these payments since 22 July last year, when 10,000 and more claim forms were sent out, but it cannot make the payments because it is still waiting for the certificates from the liquidators.
    I know of many business people who cannot proceed and cannot obtain loans from other banks because the deeds forming part of their security are still being held by the old BCCI and the liquidators will not release them. There can be no set-off arrangements unless the compensation plan is discussed.
    Knowing the Chief Secretary's constituency interest and the constituency interest of the Chancellor and of other right hon. and hon. Members, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us that he intends to make an early intervention to ensure that these payments are made.
    It has been estimated that the closure of the bank will cost the British economy millions—some say billions—of pounds in lost exports. I believe that the Government have a duty to act now to mitigate that loss.
    9.8 pm
    Mr. Bryan Gould: The Secretary of State for the Environment generously promised to give up his dinner in order to listen to my speech, and I see that on that issue at any rate he has been as good as his word. I know what a penance that must have been for him.
    The plaudits of Conservative Members must have sounded sweet in his ears, but I suspect that his pleasure was tempered by the reflection that those plaudits were little more than a consolation prize for the manifest failure of those who cheered him today to vote for him a little more than a year ago.
    As the right hon. Gentleman engaged in that private conversation with his own Back Benchers, in pursuit no doubt of his own private agenda, what a pity it was that the unemployed, the homeless or the failed business people were not here to hear him; that there was no one from those who had suffered from the recession present to hear. There would have been few plaudits from any of them, and, in truth, the Secretary of State had literally nothing to say to them.
    It was clear that the right hon. Gentleman had, in effect, given away the next general election. Otherwise, why fail to address that wider electorate? As I say, he simply
    416
    ignored that audience outside the House. He limited his remarks to that narrower audience on his own Back Benches. It is clear that he has a quite different election in mind and a very different electorate as well.
    Although the right hon. Gentleman's speech was hardly relevant to the debate, we are making some progress. Ministers, and even the right hon. Gentleman, no longer deny that we are in recession. They no longer deny that the recession is the worst and deepest for 60 years. They no longer even pretend to discern recovery just around the corner. Even they must now fear the mocking laughter when that hollow claim is made. The green shoots which the Chancellor pretended to identify turned out to be just so much rhubarb.
    The Government's only refuge now is in the assertion that our problems are just part of a worldwide recession. There was a time when patriotism was said to be the last refuge of a scoundrel. The scoundrels whom we have to deal with today clearly go further afield in order to seek their comfort. But even that claim is flatly contradicted by the facts and by the more honest of Conservative Members. In case there are those who dispute that statement, I direct their attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris).
    Britain led the world into recession. We sought it out. It was the deliberate objective of policy. We were first in, we were deepest in, we are hurting worst and we have the least prospect of emerging from that recession. The truth is that our recession is the end product, the inevitable outcome, of 13 years of Tory government. It is a home-grown recession—home-grown in the sense that it was made here in Britain by a British Government, and home-grown in the sense that the homes of the British people have played a major part in creating and sustaining that recession.
    No one now doubts, and no one except Ministers now disputes, that the seeds of recession were sown in the mistakes in economic policy in the late 1980s. Those mistakes were described by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) as ending in tears. I could not have chosen a better phrase myself. In their more honest moments, and because they can find someone convenient to blame, Ministers are sometimes inclined to accept that those mistakes were made and to point the finger at the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). That is easy enough now; it is only a pity that there were so few Conservative Members who were prepared to make that criticism at the time.
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman spoke about mistakes. Will he confirm to the House his commitment, which I understand the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has confirmed as a priority, that a Labour Government would renationalise the water companies at a price of some £4 billion? Will he also confirm whether that has been agreed with the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith)?
    Mr. Gould: If the hon. Gentleman would care to do his homework—as so few of his hon. Friends are prepared to do—and to read our policy documents, he will see a very clear statement of our intention to restore the essential degree of public accountability to the way in which the water industry operates.

    417
    Let me continue on the subject of the Government's mistakes—evidently a subject on which there is an element of sensitivity on the Conservative Benches.
    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: No; I want to make this point.
    Not everyone needed the benefit of hindsight, or a convenient scapegoat, to recognise the truth of what was happening to the economy. Some of us knew what was happening; some of us knew what terrible problems were being stored up.
    In October 1988, for example, at the height of the property boom—in the midst of the triumphalism that marked so much of this period—the Chancellor was accused of building, on foundations of supply-side weakness and soaring demand, a house of cards. On that occasion, the speaker warned:
    "Those cards are now teetering and trembling and cannot be sustained for much longer. When they collapse, everything will collapse and then we shall discover that the stakes in the game he has been playing have been not chips in some poker game, but real jobs, real living standards and lives."—[Official Report, 25 October 1988; Vol. 139, c. 256.]
    It did not require much prescience for me to make that speech in the House on 28 October 1988; but even I could not have foreseen how those initial mistakes—enthusiastically supported at the time, I have no doubt, by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now Prime Minister—would be compounded by further mistakes made by the same right hon. Gentleman, first as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister.
    How the Prime Minister must regret his complacent assertion that
    "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working."
    It is hurting all right, and it is hurting because the Prime Minister intended it to hurt. The problem is that it is not working—and not only is it not working; nor are those who are thrown on to the scrap heap day by day and week by week as a result of the very hurt that the Government intended.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gould: I am not giving way for the moment.
    The recession is home-grown in another sense as well. Homes, houses, the housing market, the construction industry, mortgages, repossessions—all have played a central part, first in the mistakes made by the Government, then in the corrective measures attempted by the Government and now in the hurt sustained as a result of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gould: Not for the moment; I have limited time. If I have time, I shall give way later.
    House values were the great bellows of the credit boom —fanning the flames of asset inflation, and then using those inflated values to create yet further credit. It was that unstable structure that, inevitably, came crashing down; and, again, it was the housing market that was the deliberate target of Government policy, and the chosen instrument with which the crash was brought about.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gould: Of course Conservative Members do not want to hear what I am saying, but I invite them to sit down and listen.
    Interest rates were raised to record levels; housing values slumped; the market fell; millions were caught in the trap into which they had been lured, and which was then sprung. Their repayments soared at the same time as their assets lost value. In many cases, mortgage debts exceeded the value of the properties on which the loans had been raised. Repossessions mounted; family budgets were wrecked; consumer confidence plummeted; spending stopped; demand fell; unemployment soared. Unemployment drove repossessions, and repossessions drove unemployment.
    The economy was now in terrifying, dizzying, spiralling free-fall. Still the Government did nothing except, presumably, congratulate themselves that their policies were working. It was certainly hurting. This deliberate wrecking of the private housing market took place—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen can keep up this racket and rabble for as long as they like. I shall make my speech and they will listen.
    This deliberate wrecking of the private housing market took place against—
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman who has the floor has made it clear that he is not giving way at present. I call Mr. Gould.
    Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I make it clear that my hon. Friends have no intention of disturbing or interrupting the hon. Gentleman. We want to ask him some questions and we need some answers.
    Mr. Gould: These delays will reduce the time available to the Government spokesman. I have made it clear that for the moment I do not intend to give way, and I would therefore be grateful for an absence of interventions until I am satisfied that I have had enough time to say what I have to say.
    This deliberate wrecking of the private housing market took place against the background of the deliberate denial—
    Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it true that the conventions of the House allow an hon. Member to refuse to give way only if he is making his maiden speech? Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that he is making his maiden speech and therefore cannot be interrupted?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for the hon. Member who has the floor. I remind the House that this has been a relatively quiet debate—[Laughter]—for the past two or three hours and I hope that it will continue that way.
    Mr. Gould: I am afraid that Conservative hon. Members are very slow learners. They do not seem to understand that the more they attempt to disrupt a speech, the less likely it is that the speaker will give way.
    I was saying that the deliberate wrecking of the private housing market took place against the background of an equally deliberate denial to the construction industry of its other main source of orders in the public sector. Infrastructure contracts dried up and local authorities

    419
    were prevented from using their own money to build houses, with the result that last year virtually no houses were built in the public sector.
    Little wonder that the construction industry is now the main engine of recession. It has shed 250,000 jobs at the rate of 1,562 a week since July 1989. Nearly 5,000 firms have gone to the wall. The trade gap in building materials has widened disastrously. The number of housing starts fell by a disastrous 37 per cent. between 1988 and 1991,. Little wonder that an industry which was once counted as the most loyal supporter of the Conservative party has now decided that it has had enough.
    Let us listen to what the industry's leaders have to say. Mr. Peter Drew, chair of Taylor Woodrow, said on 4 September 1991:
    "We are enduring the worst conditions for over half a century. The impact of high interest rates and a widespread lack of confidence has affected all sections of the company's business."
    Mr. Terry Upsall, president of the House-Builders Federation, said on 24 July 1991:
    "Government should be aware that the recession is deepening. There will be no recovery in the housing market until the end of the recession is in sight. Reliance for so long on high interest rates is driving the country into deepening recession, creating unnecessary unemployment."
    On 26 July 1991, Sir Clifford Chetwood, chair of Wimpey, said:
    "I have no doubt that the current recession is the worst this industry has experienced for 40 years. In the UK there are no signs of an upturn and it is hard to see how the tide can turn without a decisive move by the Government to restore confidence."
    No wonder that Builder magazine—I quote this with special reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill)—began its leading article on 10 January by saying:
    "It is not the job of this magazine to tell its readers how to vote, but imagine if construction companies had the franchise—and had to exercise it in the best interests of their shareholders. Their vote would be cast for Labour."
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I want to ask him one simple question. If we live in a world in which people invest for profit, which is surely a sensible thing to do, how is it that in this knacker's yard of an economy—[Interruption.]—that is how the economy has been portrayed by Labour Members today—60 per cent. of all foreign investment in the Common Market comes to this country? Why does six times more money come to this country than goes to Germany? Why do people want to invest here—to lose money? Is it not true that the socialists are more concerned with office and the investors have got it right?
    Mr. Gould: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to ask himself why that investment is not matched by equal investment from domestic sources. My answer to that question is that it is because Ministers make no response to the cry of pain from an industry crucial to our economic recovery.
    Do Ministers recognise the need for much-needed public sector investment, as we propose? Of course they do not. Do they accept the futility of forbidding local authorities to spend their own money on desperately needed housing? Of course they do not, notwithstanding the fact that, on page 199 of the book written by the Secretary of State—clearly, he has no worries about
    420
    consistency on such matters—the right hon. Gentleman rejects the current Treasury policy on the issue. Do Ministers acknowledge the damage done by using the construction industry as a sort of political balloon—inflating it irresponsibly and then puncturing it mercilessly?
    The Government's answer to all those serious questions of such importance to the construction industry is the same loud raspberry that the Secretary of State blew today—the loud raspberry that the Government have blown at all those who are losing their homes, who are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or who are sleeping rough on our streets, and at people who have lost their jobs in the construction industry.
    That is the response of Ministers who no longer have any concern other than to save their own skins, Ministers who have no greater ambition than to deflect criticism by trading in selective statistics, snide comments, sneak attacks, and—in the case of the Secretary of State—reruns of his bid for the leadership of the Tory party. I shall confer a little accolade, as I am in a generous mood: the high priest in that black art is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is he who is deployed to put up a smokescreen to divert attention from Government failures. We know that we cannot look to him for any grasp of the issues, understanding of the problems or compassion for the victims of the Government's recession.
    It has always been a puzzle to me what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's precise role in the Cabinet is. Is he there to make the Chancellor of the Exchequer look as if he knows what he is talking about, or to make the Prime Minister seem decisive? Is he there to make the Secretary of State for Education and Science appear polite? Perhaps he is there to convey an image of the Secretary of State for the Environment as a serious politician.
    Mr. Butterfill rose—
    Mr. Gould: I conclude that the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) is there principally because of his ability to give a good news gloss to any disaster that turns up. Here he is, a man who would have hailed the sinking of the Titanic as a first in underwater exploration. Here is a man who would have greeted the black death as a necessary step towards a leaner and fitter economy. Here is a man who would have celebrated the great fire of London as a vital contribution to urban regeneration. It is no accident that it is he who will wind up the debate for the Government.
    The Government could not more clearly signal their intentions to provide no answers to the real issues which matter to millions of our fellow citizens. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's role is as a promising understudy for the Secretary of State for the Environment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a trainee Michael Heseltine. What does that tell us about the stature of the Ministers who hide behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's somewhat insubstantial figure—I speak figuratively of course?
    We know that the Chancellor—I am glad that he has joined us—is now regarded as such a liability that he is to be kept out of the public eye at all costs. What of the Prime Minister, who appointed the Chancellor, who landed him with the problems and who now offers him no idea about how to resolve them? We shall truly be able to measure their stature when, after the election, their inadequacies

    421
    can be judged dispassionately, when they are stripped of office, when they are no longer cosseted by civil servants, when they are no longer driven in ministerial cars, and when they are no longer surrounded by red boxes and the other trappings of office. That is when they will be revealed for what they are—bumbling incompetents who are simply not up to the job.
    In the meantime, what are the voters to make of that barrage of Tory propaganda to which they are now subjected? That propaganda is directly contradicted by their own personal experience. My advice to those voters is to take courage. I say to the voters, "Open your eyes, look around you and make your own assessment. Stick to your own judgment. Ask yourselves how you find the state of Britain. Ask yourselves whether you see the evidence of recession all around you. Ask yourselves whether you see evidence of people without houses and homes, whether you see people who have lost their jobs, and whether you see businesses that have failed and services that have been run down. Ask yourselves if it is really credible that a Government who have been in power for 13 years can wash their hands of what they have done and disclaim all responsibility for the disaster that has overtaken this country. Above all else, ask yourselves whether this Government, having led us into recession, have any idea of how to get us out of it and whether they show any sign of realising the enormity of what they have done."
    The speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment will help enormously in making that judgment. It was a silly and frivolous speech which did not match the gravity of the nation's plight. The right hon. Gentleman may have had his tawdry triumph this afternoon—
    Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in his speech the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that he was directing a point directly at me. He has consistently refused to give way since. I do not mind being savaged by New Zealand lamb, but I believe that he should give me the right to reply.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
    Mr. Gould: It is a sign of the desperation on Conservative Benches that that is the third false point of order made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West in the past 20 minutes. In my book, that is deliberate disruption which does the House no good.
    I conclude on the subject on which I was expounding my views to the House—the pathetic apology for a speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The right hon. Gentleman may have had his tawdry triumph on his own Benches, but an impartial judgment will be made by all those outside who will rightly condemn a Government who have destroyed lives and hopes and who recognise no burden on their conscience as a consequence. The electorate will take the chance presented by the next general election, not long delayed now, to recall the Government to their proper responsibilities.
    9.34 pm
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was in excitable form, but I am not sure that he entirely obscured the fact that once again the Opposition have chosen a day for a debate on the economy and found nothing whatever to say. The hon. Gentleman ribbed me about what might
    422
    be in my speech, but he did not set me an elevated example with a speech that was entirely devoid of any policy commitment. When he was asked a straight question about what one of his junior spokesmen had said was a priority for the Labour party—renationalisation of the water industry—he ducked the question in a way that would not have done credit to someone in a fifth-form debating society.
    The debate has revealed the Labour party's split personality—on the one hand, the conventional speeches of orthodoxy from the Front Bench, but on the other, Back Benchers seething with discontent, as we read in The Guardian today. Hollow unconvincing laughter does not prevent the discontent from showing through.
    Then there is the split personality of the hon. Member for Dagenham. He shed crocodile tears about the poor state of the nation while undoubtedly still savouring the £500-a-plate dinner that he had the other night at the Park Lane hotel. If he can deliver that many fat cats to pay that kind of money for the Labour party, he must be doing something right. However, at least that dinner proved that the Leader of the Opposition is capable of learning from his experiences. It is the first dinner that he has ever attended where he opened his mouth only to eat.
    Mr. John Smith: Very poor.
    Mr. Mellor: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Very poor." Well, he is an expert. I shall try to do better. I am working on it.
    The debate was not a triumph for the Labour party, first, because its analysis is incredible to the general public, as is obvious from the opinion polls. The Labour party has failed to acknowledge what everyone knows to be the reality in the world about us. Secondly, the public are much more interested in looking ahead to see what policies are on offer. In no respect do they find the Labour party's policy convincing. Indeed, the Opposition spokesmen cannot even agree what their policy is in crucial areas of spending and taxation.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East quoted with approval the Governor of the Bank of England. One is never sure where the Governor of the Bank of England stands with the Labour party. As Disraeli once said, it is never quite sure whether to blacken his character or blacken his boots. Today was a day for blackening his boots so perhaps I might remind the House of what he said in a speech yesterday about the international situation. He said:
    "The slowdown in the world economy appears to have spread now to all of the major economies. It has been particularly evident in the United States where, despite the authorities' actions, the recovery which seemed in prospect in early summer appears now to have dissipated. In fact, output appears to have risen hardly at all in the final quarter of the year. Western Germany has also ceased to grow after its post-unification rise in output, while in France and Italy activity has remained weak. Even Japan is experiencing a notable slowing in the pace of GDP growth."—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Boring."] It may be boring but it is the truth—a truth which the Opposition dare not countenance because the flimsy house of cards which is their policy falls apart once the reality of the situation is known.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson rose—
    Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way. I want to press on. How can the Opposition deny that Germany is in recession? Today The Times stated:

    423
    "Germany is in a full-fledged recession, with unemployment the highest since the Weimar republic and with industrial production having fallen by over 3 per cent. in December alone."
    How many of those who have watched the coverage of the United States presidential primary in New Hampshire can deny the problems of the United States economy, where the motor industry contracted by 8 per cent. last month? The Opposition make play of the losses made by Ford, but Ford in the United States lost £2·2 billion last year. Manufacturing production there fell by 1 per cent. last month.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I shall ask my hon. Friend and question similar to the one that I asked the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who seemed shy to answer. If it is true that our economy is so bad and that this country really is in the knacker's yard, why do 60 per cent. of investors, who have to make a profit, come to this country? That is six times the number going to Germany and three times the number going to France. Would my right hon. and learned Friend rather trust an investor or those people who are aching for office? Who is likely to do the right thing?
    Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those relevant remarks. If one considers figures for international investment in the United Kingdom, one finds that, at constant 1990 prices, in the six years to 1989 there was nearly £8 billion of inward investment from the United States, culminating in an investment of more than £4 billion in 1989. What was the figure during the last full year of the last Labour Government? In 1978, it was £321 million. That is the difference. Consider the figures for Japan. In 1987, there was £657 million of investment from Japan; in 1988, it was £768 million; and, in 1989, it was £1·12 billion. What was the figure in the last year of the last Labour Government? In 1978, it was minus £10 million. That is the difference between our record and that of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Does the Minister accept that this country has been in uninterrupted recession for six quarters? No other major industrial economy has faced that situation. I agree that other economies are slowing down and perhaps going through recession, but that does not make it right that we have been in recession for a year and a half and have no prospect of coming out of it. That only reinforces the need to do something about it. What does he intend to do?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman sounds as confused as when he was mismanaging Jaguar all those years ago. He is wrong. Australia, Canada and Sweden have all been in recession for longer. If he is interested, I will give him the figures. Since the beginning of 1990, only two of the 14 largest economies—Japan and Denmark—have never experienced a quarter on quarter fall. Six quarters for 14 economies amount to 84 movements and 34 of them have been downwards. That is a sign of the extent of international problems.
    Mr. Gould: Since the hon. Gentleman is clearly a master of this part of his brief at any rate, can he tell us which of the countries to which he referred has enjoyed or suffered six successive quarters of officially defined recession?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is such a master of his brief that he cannot even put the British position right. We have not had six successive quarters of falling growth. Growth did not fall in the third quarter of last year.
    Mr. Gould: Answer the question.
    Mr. Mellor: I have given the answer. I have told the hon. Gentleman that his premise is completely false. He should leave others to decide who is on top of their brief.
    Mr. Foulkes rose—
    Mr. Mellor: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    The Opposition find themselves in the eminently discreditable position of having to talk down not only the efforts of the Government, but those of many other people in our economy who have performed well. It is not just we who object to that. Did the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the hon. Member for Dagenham see the speech made by Sir John Banham yesterday? He said:
    "incessant politicisation"
    of the economic situation was causing the very lack of confidence that
    "is at the root of the current recession … We are building the right partnership for Government and industry."
    Mr. Gould: Let us have the election.
    Mr. Mellor: I think that the hon. Gentleman will get this election. If the speech that he made was a dry run for what he intends to say then, he has every reason to be worried about the outcome.
    The climate for recovery has been established. Inflation is at 4·1 per cent., within a tenth of a percentage point of Germany's inflation rate. Producer prices are the lowest for a quarter of a century and interest rates have come down by 4·5 per cent. from their peak. Interest rates in this country have experienced seven downward movements, while German rates have gone up 4 per cent.
    I notice that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has reverted to one of his more facile arguments, as he is again calling for a reduction in interest rates. He had gone off that argument for some time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was extremely querulous about noise when he was speaking. It would be interesting to know if he now has an answer about interest rates.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman may call for a reduction in interest rates, but is he aware that Crédit Lyonnais has calculated that interest rates will increase by 4 per cent. under a Labour Government? The London Business School has said that a Labour Government would put up interest rates by up to 3 per cent. Kleinwort Benson has calculated that interest rates would rise by between 2 and 4 per cent. DKB bank and Nomura Research Institute have calculated that they would go up by 2 per cent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may ignore those calculations, but the public will not. James Capel and Barclays de Zoete Wedd have said that they will increase by 1 per cent. UBS Phillips and Drew, Midland Montagu, Goldman Sachs and the Confederation of British Industry have all said that interest rates would rise under Labour. That is why the Labour party is not trusted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's puerile response does him no credit.
    Conditions for recovery exist, but the Labour party has no policies to improve them—it would make them worse.

    425
    Let us consider what the Labour party proposes for the business community—the 28 ways in which it proposes to increase the burdens on business. Social audits would interfere with investment decisions. Labour would return to the trade unions the power of secondary picketing and remove from the courts the right to sequestrate the assets of trade unions.
    How many people want to go back to the days when flying pickets held the nation to ransom? What does the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East say about the fact that, in 1991, 800,000 days were lost in industrial disputes whereas in 1979, 29 million days were lost? What has the Labour party learnt about the problems that can be caused by out of control trade unions? Some people put their mistakes behind them. The Labour party puts its mistakes into policy documents and seeks to give the kiss of life to ideas that were the kiss of death in the 1970s.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Government having decided to abolish wages councils, do they believe in a low wage economy for British people?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that the consequences of the Labour alternative—the minimum wage—would massively increase unemployment. That is not just the view of Conservative Members but of leading figures in the trade unions. Only one newspaper supported Labour party policy on the minimum wage, and that was the Morning Star.
    Mr. Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Minister a question and he has not given me an answer. Does he believe in a low wage economy for the British people? I have not had an answer to that question.
    Mr. Speaker: It frequently happens.
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) is well past his yell-by date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
    We had the commendation from Labour Front Bench spokesmen of the social charter, which would prevent Mr. Delors's greatest fear—that Britain would be a paradise for inward investment. That would worry Labour Members if they were rational. Just as the Labour party is trying to advocate the social charter, we learn from the Financial Times today that the Germans are proposing to move away from it. Talking about a package of measures designed to improve inward investment into Germany drawn up by the Economics Ministry, it said:
    "The package is an attempt to meet the growing chorus of complaints from German industry that high wage and tax costs and an excessive burden of social and environmental spending are driving German and foreign investors alike away from the market."
    What is happening is typical of Labour Members. They cannot tell the difference between a bandwagon and a sinking ship, and they are leaping on to the idea of the social charter just as people in Europe are beginning to realise that it does not work.
    The Labour party has no serious answers on those issues. One simply gets bogus propositions, such as the recovery package that is supposed to cost £1 billion, £800 million of which is to be on training. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East can answer an important question. Is £800 million on training and an extra £200 million on other matters supposed to be able to
    426
    transform an economy of £600 billion, with over £200 billion of public expenditure? The whole thing is risible and an insult to the intelligence of the British public.
    It becomes even more of a nonsense when one considers that the Labour party proposes to pay all trainees on training schemes the minimum wage. So unless Labour is prepared to cut the number of trainees, out of that £800 million extra more than £600 million will have to go to top up the amount of money paid to trainees, with no benefit whatever. What is Labour's answer to that? If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East will cease his selective reading of the Secretary of State's book, he might care to answer that question.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is not having good week—even his hon. Friends are getting dissatisfied with him—will be thought to be clowning around when he goes before the public with a recovery package of £1 billion and it turns out that more than £600 million of it will be needed to top up the money going to existing trainees and will not add one to the number of people being trained.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Mellor: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has not been present for most of the debate.
    Labour cannot even agree on whether the recovery package will he a priority. The deputy leader of the Labour party said that the recovery package would be paid for only when the recovery had taken place. I sometimes think that the right hon. Gentleman, who spends half his time as a novelist and half as a politician, is getting his roles confused. It is the novels he should he making up as he goes along, not the politics.
    Mr. Dicks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the leader of the Labour party said recently on television that the recovery package would take place as a result of economic growth? In other words, if there is economic growth after four or five years, that is when Labour would introduce its recovery package.
    Mr. Mellor: Exactly.
    In the past two weeks, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, the hon. Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) twice, have tried to answer the simple question whether that so-called recovery package, which is entirely bogus, will be introduced straight away, but they cannot agree among themselves. No wonder the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East had to acknowledge today what a muddle and a mess the Labour party is in. He had to admit that it is about to produce a document which sets out its spending plans and the tax implications of those. So the Labour party will not produce a document just yet.
    Mr. David Blunkett: Will the Chief Secretary answer one simple question? When will his own recovery programme be implemented?
    Mr. Mellor: Everyone in the forecasting community accepts—the Governor of the Bank of England said so yesterday—that there will be a recovery during the course of this year. That would not happen if there were the kind of programme that the Labour party wants to carry into effect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]

    427
    If the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has reached the conclusion, after the mess and confusion of the past few weeks, that he now needs to produce a document to say what Labour will spend and what that will cost in taxation, why does he not produce it now? Why must he wait?
    I was interested to see a Labour party publication entitled "Woman Today" with a competition which says:
    "Win a day in Parliament. All you have to do is say in no more than 100 words what you think the priorities of a Labour government should be".
    So we know that we must wait until those good ladies have sent in their answers before the right hon. and learned Gentleman can produce his document. We really want to know not what people must do to win a day in Parliament but what they must do to win a dinner at Luigi's. Perhaps they must make Labour's tax plans add up.
    No amount of bluster and continuous talking will allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman to escape from the fact that he cannot bring home the bacon for his hon. Friends, as a result of which they are mouthing their dissatisfaction to the press. They are prepared to put up with the orthodoxy so long as it looks as though it will deliver electoral victory.
    Labour's tax plans do not convince. They would commend themselves only to the boxing promoter responsible for finding Mr. Frank Bruno's next opponent, because they are guaranteed to stand up for not more than three minutes. In every test for a credible alternative Government, the Labour party has failed to find a policy that remotely commends itself to anybody who believes in the recovery of this country.
    The fact is that in recent months we have increased our exports to other European countries by 5 per cent., that for the third year running our share of world trade in manufactures has increased, and that we have a climate fully competitive with that anywhere else in the European Community. All that would be put at risk by the Labour party's tax-and-spend policies. Today the Opposition have had yet another opportunity to prove that they are fit for office, and they have taken yet another opportunity to prove that manifestly they are not.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 311.

    Division No. 87]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Blair, Tony

    Alton, David

    Blunkett, David

    Anderson, Donald

    Boateng, Paul

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Bradley, Keith

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Caborn, Richard

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Battle, John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Beckett, Margaret

    Canavan, Dennis

    Beith, A. J.

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Bell, Stuart

    Carr, Michael

    Bellotti, David

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Clelland, David

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

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Benton, Joseph

    Cohen, Harry

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    428

    Corbett, Robin

    Lamble, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Lamond, James

    Cousins, Jim

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cox, Tom

    Leighton, Ron

    Crowther, Stan

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Cryer, Bob

    Lewis, Terry

    Cummings, John

    Litherland, Robert

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Livingstone, Ken

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Dalyell, Tam

    Loyden, Eddie

    Darling, Alistair

    McAllion, John

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    McFall, John

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

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

    McLeish, Henry

    Dewar, Donald

    Maclennan, Robert

    Dixon, Don

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dobson, Frank

    McNamara, Kevin

    Doran, Frank

    Madden, Max

    Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Marek, Dr John

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Eadie, Alexander

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Edwards, Huw

    Martlew, Eric

    Enright, Derek

    Maxton, John

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Meacher, Michael

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Meale, Alan

    Fatchett, Derek

    Michael, Alun

    Fearn, Ronald

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Fisher, Mark

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Flannery, Martin

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Flynn, Paul

    Morley, Elliot

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Foster, Derek

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Foulkes, George

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Fraser, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Fyfe, Maria

    Murphy, Paul

    Galbraith, Sam

    Nellist, Dave

    Galloway, George

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    O'Brien, William

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Parry, Robert

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Patchett, Terry

    Gordon, Mildred

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gould, Bryan

    Prescott, John

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Grocott, Bruce

    Radice, Giles

    Hain, Peter

    Randall, Stuart

    Hardy, Peter

    Redmond, Martin

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Robertson, George

    Haynes, Frank

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Rooker, Jeff

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Rooney, Terence

    Henderson, Doug

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Hood, Jimmy

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Short, Clare

    Howells, Geraint

    Skinner, Dennis

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hoyle, Doug

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

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Snape, Peter

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Soley, Clive

    Ingram, Adam

    Spearing, Nigel

    Janner, Greville

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Stott, Roger

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Strang, Gavin

    Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

    Straw, Jack

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Turner, Dennis

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Vaz, Keith

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Walley, Joan

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Wareing, Robert N.

    429

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Worthington, Tony

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Mr. Ken Eastham and

    Wilson, Brian

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    Winnick, David

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Devlin, Tim

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Alexander, Richard

    Dicks, Terry

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Dover, Den

    Amess, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Amos, Alan

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Eggar, Tim

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Atkinson, David

    Evennett, David

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Fallon, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Farr, Sir John

    Baldry, Tony

    Favell, Tony

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Batiste, Spencer

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Bendall, Vivian

    Forman, Nigel

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Benyon, W.

    Forth, Eric

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bitten, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Franks, Cecil

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Freeman, Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    French, Douglas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fry, Peter

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Boswell, Tim

    Gill, Christopher

    Bottomley, Peter

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bowis, John

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Gorst, John

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brazier, Julian

    Gregory, Conal

    Bright, Graham

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Grist, Ian

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

    Ground, Patrick

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Hague, William

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butler, Chris

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butterfill, John

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Carrington, Matthew

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

    Carttiss, Michael

    Harris, David

    Cash, William

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hayes, Jerry

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hay hoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayward, Robert

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Conway, Derek

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hill, James

    Couchman, James

    Hind, Kenneth

    Cran, James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

    Curry, David

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Day, Stephen

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    430

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Irving, Sir Charles

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jack, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jackson, Robert

    Portillo, Michael

    Janman, Tim

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jessel, Toby

    Price, Sir David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Redwood, John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Riddick, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kilfedder, James

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Knapman, Roger

    Rost, Peter

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Knox, David

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Shelton, Sir William

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lord, Michael

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Speed, Keith

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Speller, Tony

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Maclean, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Squire, Robin

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Madel, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Steen, Anthony

    Mans, Keith

    Stern, Michael

    Maples, John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Marland, Paul

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Marlow, Tony

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stokes, Sir John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Moate, Roger

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Tracey, Richard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Mudd, David

    Trippier, David

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Trotter, Neville

    Nelson, Anthony

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Viggers, Peter

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Walden, George

    Norris, Steve

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Waller, Gary

    Page, Richard

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Paice, James

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Warren, Kenneth

    Patnick, Irvine

    Watts, John

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Wells, Bowen

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Ray

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Widdecombe, Ann

    431

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Yeo, Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wilshire, David

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 208.

    Division No. 88]

    [10.12 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Couchman, James

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Cran, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, David

    Allason, Rupert

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

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Amess, David

    Day, Stephen

    Amos, Alan

    Devlin, Tim

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dicks, Terry

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Atkinson, David

    Dover, Den

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Dunn, Bob

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Baldry, Tony

    Dykes, Hugh

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Eggar, Tim

    Batiste, Spencer

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Evennett, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fallon, Michael

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Farr, Sir John

    Benyon, W.

    Favell, Tony

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Body, Sir Richard

    Forman, Nigel

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Forth, Eric

    Boswell, Tim

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Bottomley, Peter

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Franks, Cecil

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Freeman, Roger

    Bowis, John

    French, Douglas

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Fry, Peter

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gill, Christopher

    Brazier, Julian

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Bright, Graham

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

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

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Gorst, John

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butler, Chris

    Gregory, Conal

    Butterfill, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Grist, Ian

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ground, Patrick

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hague, William

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Chope, Christopher

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

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

    Colvin, Michael

    Harris, David

    Conway, Derek

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hayes, Jerry

    432

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hay ward, Robert

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Norris, Steve

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hill, James

    Page, Richard

    Hind, Kenneth

    Paice, James

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

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

    Patnick, Irvine

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pawsey, James

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hunter, Andrew

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Jack, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jackson, Robert

    Portillo, Michael

    Janman, Tim

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jessel, Toby

    Price, Sir David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Redwood, John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rhodes James, Sir Robert

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Riddick, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kilfedder, James

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Knapman, Roger

    Rost, Peter

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela

    Knox, David

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Latham, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Shelton, Sir William

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lord, Michael

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Speed, Keith

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Speller, Tony

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Maclean, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Squire, Robin

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Madel, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Steen, Anthony

    Mans, Keith

    Stern, Michael

    Maples, John

    Stevens, Lewis

    Marland, Paul

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Marlow, Tony

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stokes, Sir John

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mills, Iain

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Moate, Roger

    Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Thurnham, Peter

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Tracey, Richard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Mudd, David

    Trippier, David

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Trotter, Neville

    Nelson, Anthony

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    433

    Viggers, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Wilshire, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Walden, George

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Wood, Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Woodcock, Dr. Mike

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Yeo, Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Watts, John

    Wells, Bowen

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitney, Ray

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mr. John M. Taylor.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

    Doran, Frank

    Alton, David

    Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

    Anderson, Donald

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Eadie, Alexander

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Edwards, Huw

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Enright, Derek

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Barron, Kevin

    Fatchett, Derek

    Battle, John

    Fearn, Ronald

    Beckett, Margaret

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Beith, A. J.

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

    Bell, Stuart

    Fisher, Mark

    Bellotti, David

    Flannery, Martin

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Flynn, Paul

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

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Benton, Joseph

    Foster, Derek

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Foulkes, George

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Fraser, John

    Blair, Tony

    Fyfe, Maria

    Blunkett, David

    Galbraith, Sam

    Boateng, Paul

    Galloway, George

    Bradley, Keith

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Caborn, Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Callaghan, Jim

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Gould, Bryan

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Carr, Michael

    Hain, Peter

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Hardy, Peter

    Clelland, David

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Cohen, Harry

    Haynes, Frank

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Corbett, Robin

    Henderson, Doug

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cox, Tom

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Crowther, Stan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cryer, Bob

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cummings, John

    Howells, Geraint

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Hoyle, Doug

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Darling, Alistair

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Ingram, Adam

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

    Janner, Greville

    Dewar, Donald

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Dixon, Don

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    434

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Prescott, John

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

    Radice, Giles

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Redmond, Martin

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Lambie, David

    Reid, Dr John

    Lamond, James

    Robertson, George

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Leighton, Ron

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rooney, Terence

    Lewis, Terry

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Litherland, Robert

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Sheerman, Barry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McAllion, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McFall, John

    Short, Clare

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Skinner, Dennis

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    McMaster, Gordon

    Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Snape, Peter

    Madden, Max

    Soley, Clive

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marek, Dr John

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stott, Roger

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Strang, Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    Maxton, John

    Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis

    Meacher, Michael

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Meale, Alan

    Vaz, Keith

    Michael, Alun

    Walley, Joan

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Morley, Elliot

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Wilson, Brian

    Mullin, Chris

    Winnick, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Nellist, Dave

    Worthington, Tony

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wray, Jimmy

    O'Brien, William

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Parry, Robert

    Mr. Ken Eastham and

    Patchett, Terry

    Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its success in winning the battle against inflation and in bringing interest rates down; welcomes the recent reduction in the balance of payments deficit and the fact that exports are at record levels; notes that the United Kingdom has some of the most competitive tax rates in the world, including the lowest level of corporation tax in either the G7 or the European Community and that Government spending on training has increased by two and a half times over and above the rate of inflation since 1979; recognises that the foundations for economic recovery are now firmly laid; and rejects totally the policies of the Opposition, which would lead to soaring inflation, greater public sector borrowing, higher taxation, increased unemployment, rising interest rates, declining investment and a spiralling cycle of higher wages and prices which would destroy any prospect of recovery and plunge Britain into perpetual recession.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 24th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Baker relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Patnick.]

PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODIES BILL
Ordered,
That, in respect of the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Patnick.]

PETITION

  Sunday Trading
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: I beg leave to present a petition about Sunday trading. The petition has been signed by the chairman and members of the Penarth Cytyn—that is, the Penarth council of churches—and, in a very short time, by well over 1,300 other people, including all the bishops of the Church in Wales, who say that the decision of the Attorney-General to take no action on illegal Sunday trading has been seen as a licence for the law to be ignored with impunity while putting pressure on law-abiding retailers also to open on Sundays, or to suffer an unfair loss of their market share.
  The petition reminds Ministers of their duty to uphold the law, and urges that the law be modernised quickly in a way that deals fairly with employees, their families and with community and commercial interests, based on the REST proposals of the Keep Sunday Special campaign. It therefore calls on the House to require that the law be enforced until such time as it is amended, which the petitioners urge shall be based on the REST proposals.
  To lie upon the Table.

Steel Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
10.27 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I am grateful for the opportunity to express my concern about the future of the British steel industry, both nationally and, in particular, in my constituency.
Since the privatisation of the industry in 1988, the Scunthorpe general steel works has experienced almost constant job losses. More than 1,000 craft and production jobs have gone over the past year. Since the early 1980s, the number employed in the industry in Glanford and Scunthorpe has declined from more than 20,000 to around 6,000.
The Scunthorpe works has responded to those changes in a way that has brought about record iron and steel production and record productivity. A great deal of sacrifice has been made by the workers at every level in the works to ensure that it remains competitive and performs well, in a national and an international context.
The question now is this. For all that sacrifice in terms of jobs, and for all those gains in terms of productivity, what has been the reward for the work force—and, indeed, for the town that surrounds the works? It has now been announced that British Steel intends to invest in a new plate mill. I believe—and recent rumours confirm it—that a study of the site of the plate mill established that the Scunthorpe works had a great deal of merit, and was a strong contender.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) is in the Chamber. I do not want to deprive her of the pleasure that people on Teesside must feel about the fact that it has been named in connection with the plate mill investment. As individuals, we have worked together to defend not only the interests of our constituencies, but those of steel in general.
However, since privatisation there has been a move away from identifying investment in the Scunthorpe works to retrenchment. There has been a great deal of contracting out at those works as there has been at all steel plants. At Scunthorpe, even the security and emergency services have been put out to contract and that has, of course, caused concern given the very high quality of service provided in the past. I am pleased that the manager of the Scunthorpe works has given me personal assurances that that quality of service will not deteriorate.
Nevertheless, in view of the extent of the contracting out, it is inevitable that people who work at the plant feel that there is a lack of job security. That is not helped when they see investment by British Steel—now privatised—going to companies abroad to obtain the best return on capital. I understand that British Steel management have to operate under certain rules, but the management have shown a ruthlessness and lack of concern for the work force's commitment in the various plants over the years.
In all fairness, I am grateful to Sir Robert Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, and to Brian Moffat, the chief executive, for their frankness in my discussions with them and for their willingness to meet to discuss these issues. I also pay tribute to Gerry Gorman, who was the former manager of the Scunthorpe plant and the present manager,
438
Stuart Pettifor. They have also been helpful in responding to requests and have generally managed the works very responsibly.
The Government must share responsibility because when they privatised the steel industry they cut it adrift and washed their hands of it, leaving it to sink or swim. Steel is the powerhouse of manufacturing in this country. Its role is strategic as well as commercial. To lose our steel-making capacity means losing our place as a manufacturing nation. Do we want our industrial heritage destroyed and to end up as an assembly-line nation putting together goods designed and manufactured abroad? That is already happening.
The matter was brought to a head and my constituents' fears were underlined by a comment made by the chief executive, Mr. Moffat. In an interview, he said that the Scunthorpe works could end up finishing imported Brazilian billet. I do not want to take Mr. Moffat's comments out of context—he made it clear that he was talking about the long term and that he did not expect that to happen in his lifetime—but one can understand how they have not helped morale at the Scunthorpe works. People feel that, despite the gains that it has made in productivity, the works' future lies in finishing imported Brazilian steel.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Does my hon. Friend agree that an additional problem for British Steel is the depth and seriousness of the present recession, which has led to the difficulties of playing one area—his own in Scunthorpe—off against another—mine in Teesside? That is the last thing that the Labour party want. We want to support British Steel in a diversified policy which develops different regions, rather than producing the appalling situation in which one region is played off against another.
Mr. Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. My predecessor, who was a Conservative Member of Parliament viciously attacked the Ravenscraig steel industry before 1987, and succeeded only in setting one steel plant against another. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for supporting me tonight and for the way in which she has worked with me and our two communities—two Labour Members of Parliament working together—to try to represent the best interests of those communities and the future of steel in manufacturing.
Steel is a capital-intensive industry which is prone to cycles of production. The privatisation of steel does not have a good record. Previous privatisations led to asset stripping and under-investment. The jury is still out on this privatisation in terms of investment by British Steel in its plants, but I am worried that, although there has been a great deal of investment in the primary end of British Steel, there has not been a great deal so far in the downstream part of its production. Financially, steel has not performed noticeably better under private ownership than under public ownership.
Within the Scunthorpe works are two private steel works—United Merchant Bar and Allied Steel and Wire. They have both recently received the Queen's award for industry, and they are both successful and important to our community. Those two companies are dependent on the Scunthorpe works for the supply of their billet and part

439
of their energy. They are an integrated part of the works —indeed, they were formerly part of those works until they were sold to the separate companies.
When the Government privatised British Steel, they gave it monopoly power. At the time, I accepted that it was probably better to sell the organisation as an integrated company than to break it up into individual plants—and I imagine that that is still true today. However, if viable individual steel plants are threatened with closure and with being sold off, there is a case for examining British Steel's current monopoly in those areas.
British Steel's current profits are about the same as they were before privatisation—about £200 million, which they were in 1987. They are certainly lower than the £400 million that it produced in 1988, under public ownership. Although time has moved on, demand and sales were similar in both periods, and exports are slightly higher.
As I have said, there has been much investment in the primary end of the business, and that makes Mr. Moffat's comments all the more strange. To talk about importing steel into what is, in terms of liquid steel and iron production, one of the most efficient steel works in the world, puzzles local workers and other constituents. I share their concern.
British Steel would be the first to point out that it has to operate in the current economic climate. The Government must take its share of the blame for that climate, and therefore for the decline in steel. The company has to depend on the energy prices laid down by the Government, and energy and water costs in Britain are artificially high; they have been inflated by the Government's dogmatic adherence to privatisation.
It is no use blaming the world recession—we have heard a great deal of that in recent weeks. British Steel says that, although there has been a slackening in the demand for steel in world markets, that slackening has been about 5 per cent. in America, Japan and the rest of Europe, while in the United Kingdom there has been a drop of between 16 and 17 per cent.—nearly three times the drop in world demand.
The Government must also take responsibility for their general level of economic incompetence. They have imposed high interest rates, which have crippled industry, and they have given manufacturing industry a low priority. Thirty-four jobs in the manufacturing sector have disappeared for every hour of the day and night since 1979, when the Labour Government were in power. Since 1979, 2,387,000 jobs in manufacturing have gone, 9,400 apprenticeships have gone, and unemployment has increased in 22 consecutive months—that is well above the EC average.
Britain is the only country in the EC where manufacturing activity is lower than it was in 1979. We have the lowest rate of research and development in the EC. This country never had a trade deficit under the Labour Government; since 1983 it has never had a surplus. That is an appalling record.
In my constituency all the local councils have done their best to react to the changes. Until last year they had great success. Scunthorpe council was held up as a model council for attracting company after company to the area. It has done a good job, for which it deserves credit. That activity has cut unemployment from its peak, and I
440
acknowledge the Government grants received because of our assisted area status, which, with contributions from the EC, have been vital to the process.
Even so, according to the Government's calculations, there was a 44 per cent. reduction in unemployment between January 1984 and January 1992. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Government have changed the method of calculating unemployment at least 22 times, to my knowledge, and I have now lost count. The fairest way to compare the drop in unemployment is to use the former methods of calculation which have been prepared for me by the Unemployment Unit.
Under the former methods of calcuation, the drop in unemployment between January 1984 and January 1992 is 29·2 per cent.—considerably less than under the present calculations. That trend is now reversing. Under the official Department of Employment count, between January 1991 and January 1992, unemployment has increased in Glanford and Scunthorpe by 29·2 per cent. —exactly the decline in unemployment from 1984. We are back almost to where we were in 1984. The calculations are a matter of concern to my constituency and to the local economy. Glanford and Scunthorpe has used the available Government grants wisely, and the grants have been vital in trying to combat the change.
More than 1,000 jobs in the steel industry have gone in the past year. Of those, about two thirds went through early retirement. I am concerned—I hope that the Minister will take note of this—that those who have left employment in the steel industry through early retirement do not show up in the official statistics. There is a great deal of hidden unemployment in the area. Unemployment is worse than it appears to be in the figures. Although people have left the industry because of early retirement or retirement due to ill health, those jobs have gone for good and future generations will be denied them.
I appeal to the Minister to recognise that and to ensure that the support in Government grants through assisted area status is maintained because it is vital to the area. Even more vital, given people's insecurity about the future of steel, is that we ensure that we have job opportunities and that we widen the employment base in the constituency so that the area is not as reliant as it once was on the steel industry.
We have a Budget in a few weeks' time. We need a Budget for jobs and manufacturing. What we do not want is a 1p in the pound tax cut gimmick in a vain attempt to try to keep this Government in power. I believe that such a move will rebound on the Government because people will see through it and they will recognise that such money can be spent in far better ways for the future prosperity of our country.
We need investment in our infrastructure. We need, for example, proper high-speed rail links and freight terminals to take advantage of the channel tunnel. Our rail network is a laughing stock compared with those of France and Germany with their high-speed links. I hear tonight that British Rail has had to cancel a £150 million order for new rolling stock. That new rolling stock would have taken constructional steel from the Scunthorpe works. Not only will the commuters of the south-east have to put up with substandard rolling stock for a further year, but jobs will be lost in York in the construction of those trains and jobs will be threatened in the steel industry which would have produced the steel required.

441
We need more homes, and there is a desperate need for decent homes to rent. The construction industry needs a boost—kick-start—in the Budget. Councils need to be set free from the straitjacket of regulations. There is no reason why the councils that are sitting on capital receipts from council house sales should not be allowed to use that money to buy much-needed homes to rent. Industry needs tax help for investment in capital machinery.
Steel is not prospering under this Government. While they are committed to a hands-off and blinkered approach, we face unfair competition from Europe, where Governments are far more inclined to intervene in their economies to ensure that they are strong and competitive. There is an element of unfair competition in Europe in terms of subsidised energy and transport, and because other Governments have not made the same strides to reduce steel capacity. While that goes on, our steel industry is put at an even bigger disadvantage.
We need a Government committed to manufacturing strength, prosperity and investment in the future. If that cannot be done by this Government, the sooner they make way for a Labour Government who will do it, the better it will be for all concerned.
10.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): The future of the steel industry, like that of any other industry, depends on its competitiveness. Over the past decade, the United Kingdom steel industry has proved itself. British Steel has emerged as a company of the future, not the relic of the past which was the Labour Government's legacy.
It is understandable that British Steel's recent decision to end steel making at Ravenscraig should have led to concern about the future of the company's other plants. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) has a special interest in the Scunthorpe plant. Those who work there are among his constituents—and mine down the road at Gainsborough. He has a sincere and legitimate concern for their future. He is entitled to put his views, as he has done in the Adjournment debate today, but it is for me to put matters into context.
Scunthorpe is a highly productive and efficient plant. Its integrated operation has been continuously strengthened. Coke ovens were recently rebuilt further to reduce costs and improve quality. The Queens blast furnaces, which are a characteristic feature of the Scunthorpe works, have been successfully reconstructed. Two have been completed in recent years and a third is due for completion towards the end of this year. This will ensure effective iron-making at Scunthorpe for the foreseeable future.
British Steel has made it clear that the recent decision to end steel making at Ravenscraig will have no effect on either of the existing plate mills at Dalzell or Scunthorpe. The hon. Gentleman referred to British Steel's plans to build a new plate mill at Teesside to replace the existing mills at Scunthorpe and Dalzell. I understand that those plans have been put on ice for the present until future market demands are clearer.
The hon. Gentleman is aware of comments by British Steel's chief executive recently reported in the press to the effect that future investment is likely to be concentrated at a smaller number of integrated plants—notably at
442
Teesside and Port Talbot. These comments made it clear that the Scunthorpe plant is likely to have a long life. We should stress that point.
It is most unlikely that, in an industry where demand patterns are changing rapidly, with greater emphasis now placed on quality and finishing, supply patterns will remain completely unaltered. The important thing is that British Steel sees a long-term future for the Scunthorpe plant. I underline that point. So I believe that these comments are good news for those among the hon. Gentleman's constituents who work there. In order to survive, the plant will have to meet the needs of the market. That applies to a manufacturing operation in the steel industry, just as in any other industry.
Of course, Scunthorpe today does not just mean the steel industry. The attractions of the area have been recognised by a growing number of businesses. As the hon. Member well knows, I was in his constituency only a few months ago to open a new factory. In the past decade, Scunthorpe has seen the creation of many new jobs. Since May 1979, over 21,000 jobs have been created by just those investments which have attracted Department of Trade and Industry regional assistance.
Of course, I noted the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to continue the assistance programme. As he knows, we will have a review early in the next Parliament. The needs of Scunthorpe will be examined in an entirely objective way, just as the needs of Teesside and other areas will be examined. We will base our decisions on, for example, the unemployment figures, the peripherality of the area and other such indices to ensure that the assistance goes to those areas which need it most.
But, of course, the hon. Gentleman is right. Scunthorpe has been an enormous success story in the past 12 years. The area faced severe problems with the rundown of the steel industry but it has been a great success story. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to that. The area has seen substantial growth in inward investment and new business formation in recent years. That trend continues to contribute to the increasing diversification of the local economy. One part of the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I, and indeed the whole Government Front Bench, agreed was when he stressed the importance of the need to diversify the Scunthorpe economy.
Relocations, expansions and new investment in sectors such as furniture, electronics, food and chemicals have all helped Scunthorpe to move towards a more balanced economy. I am sure that the hon. Member welcomes that.
I believe that the hon. Member recognises that the Scunthorpe plant must be viewed in the context of British Steel's overall operations and of the industry. I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me but, as the motion for the Adjournment refers not merely to the Scunthorpe plant but to the industry, in the few remaining moments I should like to say a few words about British Steel's wider operations.
Since 1979, the steel industry's productivity has tripled. In 1979, British Steel took more than 13 man hours to produce one tonne of liquid steel. Today, it takes less than five man hours. Over the same period, market needs have altered substantially. British Steel has adapted aggressively. Investment in modern plant and techniques has made British Steel one of the few European steel-makers able to offer a full range of steels which meet the requirements of motor industry customers in the 1990s.

443
It is no coincidence that those improvements have gone hand in hand with increased exports. Exports of finished steel have increased from 4 million tonnes in 1979 to 6·5 million tonnes in 1990—an increase of more than 50 per cent. During the same period, the proportion of production exported went up from 24 per cent. to 40 per cent. That is a record second to none. Those of us attending this debate should pay tribute to British Steel for its amazing record of improving productivity and exports.
Mr. Morley: I certainly concede that British Steel has an enviable performance record. However, I am sure that the Minister can understand that, when the people within British Steel who were responsible for that—through their commitment, productivity and the work that they have done within the industry—see British Steel negotiating with, for example, Bethlehem Steel in America for investment there, one can understand that what worries them is that the investment that they feel ought to go to our United Kingdom plants might be siphoned off into investments in other countries, to the detriment of their jobs and futures. The Minister must understand their concern about that situation.
Mr. Leigh: It is always right for a Member of Parliament to express concern on behalf of his constituents. We all understand that. However, we must consider British Steel's record and the way in which it has managed to increase productivity and output. It is a sad fact of life that the number of people employed in the British steel industry, as in manufacturing generally, has declined continuously since the 1950s. That is a fact of life that we cannot escape. I am sure that the hon. Member, who is a pragmatic member of the Labour party, realises that that is a fact of life.
Unfortunately, we can now produce more steel, more efficiently, employing fewer people. It would be dangerous for me as a Minister, or for the hon. Gentleman—who perhaps hopes to be standing in my position in a few weeks —to second-guess the commercial decisions of British Steel. Were we to do so, we could well spin British Steel into uncompetitiveness, and in the long run, that could lose more jobs.
We must recognise British Steel's enormous success since it was freed from the shackles of Government control. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not one of those people who want to return to the bad old days when British Steel lost about £16 billion—in modern money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a pragmatic, modern-minded, progressive-minded member of the Labour party, does not want to return to those days.
Ms. Mowlam: In view of the Minister's argument and his emphasis on the importance of pragmatism, and as he has just argued that manufacturing jobs have declined
444
consistently since the 1950s, will he explain the reasons for that continual decline? What is his projection for jobs in manufacturing in the next decade?
Mr. Leigh: I cannot, of course, look into a crystal ball to foresee what will happen in the next two decades. However, something very interesting has already happened. Although, sadly, the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has declined under Labour and Conservative Governments—and under all European Governments—since the 1950s, since the late 1970s things have changed. As a result of our policies, output has increased by a quarter, investment has increased by a third, productivity has increased by a half, and export volumes have increased by more than two thirds. Those achievements result from our policies, which have freed British industry from the type of controls under which it was shackled by the Labour Government.
The debate is in danger of becoming party political, and that was not my aim. I digressed from my excellent text, but I shall return to it. Today, British Steel is more efficient than it has ever been. It is geared to adapt rapidly to changing market needs and it is exporting more than it has ever exported. It is in an immeasurably stronger position to face the future than it was when the Labour party left office.
British Steel's commercial and industrial strategy is a matter for the company, not for the Government. The Government believe that the national interest is best served by allowing companies to manage their own affairs. That applies to the steel industry just as it does to any other industry. It has been vindicated by British Steel's performance since privatisation, which by any standards has been impressive.
British Steel, like any other private-sector company, is responsible to its shareholders for its performance. The company has made clear its intention to continue its efforts to reduce costs in order to remain competitive. The deterioration in market conditions—with continuing over-capacity across Europe and general price weakness —has made cost-competitiveness even more important. Companies which do not compete and do not adapt to the needs of the market will not survive: it is as simple as that. There is no other way.
It is clear that 1992 will not be an easy year. Much will depend on those industries—construction, engineering, motor manufacture—which are major customers for steel. Producers will be operating in a highly competitive environment. To succeed, they will need to continue to reduce costs, to rationalise their operations, to modernise and to improve quality.
British Steel is doing all that. It is now one of the most efficient producers of steel in the world. There is every reason to be optimistic about the future of the company and, I believe, about the part that Scunthorpe can play in that future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the tonnage of cargo carried by merchant ships owned and registered in the United Kingdom for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information available relates to imports to, and exports from, the United Kingdom.

  Weight of cargo carried in United Kingdom-registered ships imported to, or exported from, the United Kingdom: 1979–1990

  Year

  ('000 tonnes)

  1979

  72,870

  1980

  78,534

  1981

  67,943

  1982

  67,842

  1983

  59,306

  1984

  63,038

  1985

  65,796

  1986

  62,655

  1987

  65,547

  1988

  60,693

  1989

  60,338

  1990

  53,982

  These statistics exclude:
  tonnage carried in United Kingdom owned ships, which are not registered in the United Kingdom, and
  tonnage carried in United Kingdom registered ships engaged in non-United Kingdom trade.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of merchant ships owned and registered in the United Kingdom for each year since 1979.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is given in the table:

  United Kingdom owned and registered training vessels (500 grt and over): 1979–1991 (end-December)

  Number

  1979

  1,194

  1980

  1,143

  1981

  994

  1982

  868

  1983

  769

  1984

  690

  1985

  627

  1986

  496

  1987

  462

  1988

  437

  1989

  407

  1990

  378

  1991

  370

  Trunk Road Construction
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which trunk road building schemes are planned to receive Government expenditure in the years(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96; and how much each scheme will cost in total.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Trunk road building schemes which will incur works expenditure by Government in the three years from 1993–94 to 1995–96 comprise schemes already under construction at the start of 1993–94, and new starts during each of the three years.

  I shall be announcing shortly new starts for 1992–93. The composition of new starts in subsequent years will depend on progress with statutory procedures and the availability of funds in those years.

  Total provision for new construction is currently £1,395 million in 1992–93, £1,477 million in 1993–94 and £1,511 million in 1994–95.

  Ship Brokers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department paid in fees or salary for each of the last three years in respect of(a) the Government freight market representative on the Baltic exchange, (b) the Government freight agent and (c) other specialist ship brokers.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government freight market representative received no payments from the Department. Payments were made to the Government freight agent (GFA) in respect of freight forwarding and shipping services for the movement of Government cargoes by land, sea and air. These totalled £1,919,145 and £1,514,812 during the years 1988–89 and 1989–90 respectively. Since 1 January 1990, the Ministry of Defence has been responsible for the appointment of the GFA. This Department has made no payments to other specialised ship brokers.

  Port Buy-out Bids
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to bids for management buy-outs in respect of the trust ports of Medway and Tilbury.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It will be for Medway ports authority and the Port of London authority, once they have received the final bids for their ports, including those expected from management and employee buy-out teams, to assess them against the objectives of sale agreed for each port and to make their recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend, who will then consider them.

  Lorry and Bus Drivers
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further steps he is taking to improve the training offered to learner lorry and bus drivers.

  Mr. Chope
  I am pleased to say that the Driving Standards Agency, an executive agency of the Department of Transport, today issued a consultation paper to over 100 organisations concerned with driver training and road safety on a draft syllabus for trainee lorry and bus drivers.
  149
  The syllabus will be published later this year, along with guidance on the lorry and bus driving test, and will provide the basis for a structured programme of training. By reference to the syllabus such drivers will be able to confirm the standard of driving they are receiving and check for themselves their training programme and progress.

  British Rail, Scotland
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will state the proposed capital expenditure plans for British Rail in Scotland for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Freeman
  BR keeps only limited historic information on investment on a geographic basis. There is no information on rolling stock investment, and as BR plans on a business sector basis there is no information for future years.

  Aviation Services
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made by EC member states towards providing for a single market in aviation services by the end of 1992, with respect in particular to the abolition of bilateral air servicing agreements and to the permitting of cross border investment by one airline in another.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Good progress is being made. The third and final stage of EC air transport liberalisation measures is under negotiation in Brussels and is due to take effect by 1 Janaury 1993. Air services between and

  Name

  Owner

  Date of registration1

  Date of last inspection

  Aberdonian

  Nomis Shipping Ltd.

  1977

  3 December 1991

  Alexandra Tide

  Tidewater Marine

  January 1974

  20 December 1991

  Anegada

  Knight/Carvel

  May 1962

  11 July 1991

  Atlantic Defender

  Swire Pacific

  1979

  2 December 1991

  Atlantic Guardian

  Swire Pacific

  1980

  20 December 1991

  Barnsley

  Knight/Carvel

  October 1960

  31 May 1991

  Barra Supplier

  Barra Shipping

  1984

  4 June 1991

  Black Isle

  Black Ice Ltd.

  1973

  14 October 1991

  Black Watch

  Black Watch Ltd.

  April 1977

  6 January 1992

  Blue Flame 1

  Putford Enterprises

  October 1976

  6 March 1991

  Breydon Eider

  Breydon Marine

  March 1961

  9 April 1991

  Britannia Challenger

  Britannia Marine

  April 1964

  10 April 1991

  Britannia Champion

  Suffolk Marine

  February 1980

  17 May 1991

  Britannia Chieftain

  Suffolk Marine

  1973

  9 January 1992

  Britannia Cobra

  Britannia Marine

  April 1978

  6 March 1991

  Britannia Conquest

  Suffolk Marine

  February 1974

  25 April 1991

  Britannia Crusader

  Suffolk Marine

  1976

  17 September 1991

  Britannia Endeavour

  Suffolk Marine

  1975

  22 October 1991

  Britannia Fury

  Britannia Marine

  October 1972

  19 March 1991

  Britannia Gazelle

  Britannia Marine

  August 1978

  21 March 1991

  Britannia Harvester

  Suffolk Marine

  December 1972

  3 April 1991

  Britannia Knight

  Suffolk Marine

  June 1976

  9 April 1991

  Britannia Monarch

  Suffolk Marine

  September 1973

  16 April 1991

  Britannia Stallion

  Britannia Marine

  November 1978

  4 April 1991

  Britannia Venturer

  Suffolk Marine

  1965

  19 September 1991

  Britannia Vixen

  Britannia Marine

  January 1978

  19 March 1991

  Britannia Warrior

  Suffolk Marine

  June 1973

  16 February 1991

  CAM Cheetah

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  November 1959

  13 December 1991

  CAM Civet

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  November 1960

  31 December 1991

  CAM Cougar

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  June 1958

  9 December 1991

  CAM Defender

  CAM Standby Ltd.

  1983

  30 October 1991

  CAM Genet

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  October 1960

  6 January 1992

  CAM Guardian

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  October 1970

  9 December 1991

  CAM Jaguar

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  December 1957

  19 December 1991

  CAM Lynx

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  January 1960

  19 December 1991

  CAM Observer

  CAM Offshore Ltd.

  1953

  13 December 1991

  150
  within EC member states will then be covered by EC rules rather than bilateral provisions. Cross-border investment between airlines is already covered by provisions relating to competition, including the EC mergers regulation which took effect in 1990.

  British Airways
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with British Airways following publication of "A Manifesto for Civil Aviation in the 1990s."

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are continuing contacts between the Department and British Airways about matters of mutual interest. While there have been no discussions specifically about BA's manifesto, I am pleased to note that there is no difference between the Government and BA in wishing to break down barriers to competition.

  Oil Standby Vessels
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of oil standby vessels in the United Kingdom continental shelf, and what is the name of each vessel, its owner, the date on which it was first registered, and the date of the most recent inspection.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of vessels certificated for use in the United Kingdom standby industry is at present 176.

  Attached is a list of these vessels which includes the name of owner, date of registration and the date of the vessel's last inspection.
  151

  Name

  Owner

  Date of registration1

  Date of last inspection

  CAM Panther

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  April 1958

  29 November 1991

  CAM Protector

  CAM Standby Ltd.

  1983

  20 December 1991

  CAM Puma

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  1966

  29 November 1991

  CAM Ranger

  CAM Offshore Ltd.

  1983

  17 January 1992

  CAM Retriever

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  March 1972

  25 November 1991

  CAM Scout

  CAM Offshore Ltd.

  1956

  31 December 1991

  CAM Searcher

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  April 1971

  28 November 1991

  CAM Seeker

  Nancy Sea

  January 1968

  11 December 1991

  CAM Sentinel

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  1982

  16 December 1991

  CAM Supporter

  CAM Standby Ltd.

  1983

  24 December 1991

  CAM Valiant

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  1939

  12 February 1992

  CAM Vanguard

  CAM Offshore Ltd.

  June 1955

  16 December 1991

  CAM Vedette

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  1970

  14 January 1992

  CAM Venturer

  Bristow Investments

  1973

  9 December 1991

  CAM Viceroy

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  February 1959

  8 January 1992

  CAM Victor

  Charford Shipping

  1969

  18 December 1991

  CAM Viking

  Charford Shipping

  1972

  28 November 1991

  CAM Viscount

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  1971

  29 August 1991

  CAM Voyager

  Karlsen Navi

  1957

  23 December 1991

  CAM Vulcan

  Bristow Investments

  1958

  14 January 1992

  CAM Zebra

  CAM Shipping Ltd.

  November 1960

  7 January 1992

  Colne Kestrel

  Knight/Carvel

  February 1966

  21 August 1991

  Dawn Blazer

  Warbler Shipping

  November 1965

  3 January 1992

  Dawn Gem

  Warbler Shipping

  July 1958

  18 April 1991

  Dawn Monarch

  Warbler Shipping

  June 1961

  11 May 1991

  Dawn Saviour

  Warbler Shipping

  April 1960

  10 January 1992

  Dawn Sky

  Warbler Shipping

  March 1967

  23 May 1991

  Dawn Warbler

  Warbler Shipping

  May 1966

  28 June 1991

  Dea Supporter

  Nomis Shipping Ltd.

  1970

  27 December 1991

  Euan

  Garcia Marine

  1936

  3 May 1991

  Exuma

  Colne Shipping Ltd.

  September 1961

  26 September 1991

  Far Centurion

  Midhope Shipping

  1983

  1 July 1991

  Far Earl

  Far Standby Ltd.

  1986

  30 December 1991

  Far Searcher

  Far Standby Ltd.

  1986

  10 December 1991

  Far Seeker

  Far Standby Ltd.

  1986

  20 December 1991

  Far Sovereign

  Silex Ltd.

  October 1982

  28 February 1991

  Far Stream

  Far Supply

  1982

  1 April 1991

  Grampian Chieftain

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  December 1976

  24 May 1991

  Grampian City

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  September 1976

  7 May 1991

  Grampian Concord

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  June 1961

  2 July 1991

  Grampian Dawn

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  May 1962

  30 December 1991

  Grampian Dee

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  September 1975

  22 November 1991

  Grampian Eagle

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  January 1975

  27 December 1991

  Grampian Endeavour

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  November 1966

  12 April 1991

  Grampian Explorer

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  August 1965

  27 December 1991

  Grampian Falcon

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1982

  1 July 1991

  Grampian Forest

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  October 1962

  6 December 1991

  Grampian Freedom

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  April 1957

  27 December 1991

  Grampian Harrier

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1967

  6 June 1991

  Grampian Highlander

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1976

  20 May 1991

  Grampian King

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  October 1959

  26 February 1991

  Grampian Osprey

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1937

  12 June 1991

  Grampian Otter

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1983

  27 December 1991

  Grampian Petrel

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  December 1959

  19 February 1991

  Grampian Pioneer

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1981

  5 April 1991

  Grampian Pride

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1981

  14 April 1991

  Grampian Princess

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  March 1960

  30 December 1991

  Grampian Protector

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1983

  14 January 1992

  Grampian Quest

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  May 1959

  30 April 1991

  Grampian Rose

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1949

  14 January 1992

  Grampian Shield

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  November 1974

  28 March 1991

  Grampian Sprite

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1982

  18 March 1991

  Grampian Star

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1971

  17 September 1991

  Grampian Sword

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  October 1976

  21 October 1991

  Grampian Venture

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  1982

  27 December 1991

  Grampian Viking

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  May 1961

  11 June 1991

  Grampian Warrior

  Grey Ward Partnership

  February 1977

  14 January 1992

  Hatherleigh

  Putford Enterprises

  May 1961

  19 June 1991

  Kronbas

  Kronbas

  1975

  13 February 1992

  Maersk Mariner

  Maersk Co.

  May 1986

  6 January 1992

  Maersk Ranger

  Lunar Finance

  June 1980

  15 April 1991

  Maersk Rover

  Maersk Co.

  June 1982

  30 December 1991

  Maersk Runner

  Maersk Co.

  March 1980

  17 April 1991

  Mary Craig

  Craig & Sons Ltd.

  March 1959

  27 May 1991

  Normand Skipper

  Solstad Shipping

  1975

  30 December 1991

  Oakleigh

  Putford Enterprises

  September 1961

  11 June 1991

  Putford Achates

  Put ford Enterprises

  June 1976

  10 April 1991

  152 153

  Name

  Owner

  Date of registration1

  Date of last inspection

  Putford Achilles

  Putford Enterprises

  November 1973

  3 January 1992

  Putford Ajax

  Putford Enterprises

  September 1976

  10 January 1992

  Putford Apollo

  Putford Enterprises

  1975

  9 January 1992

  Putford Harrier

  Putford Enterprises

  February 1960

  2 April 1991

  Putford Merlin

  Putford Enterprises

  April 1962

  6 March 1991

  Putford Osprey

  Putford Enterprises

  May 1960

  3 July 1991

  Putford Petrel

  Putford Enterprises

  March 1961

  3 January 1992

  Putford Skua

  Putford Enterprises

  June 1967

  16 April 1991

  Putford Snipe

  Putford Enterprises

  December 1969

  3 January 1992

  Putford Teal

  Putford Enterprises

  March 1969

  25 June 1991

  Safe Protector

  Safe Truck Shipping

  1974

  17 April 1991

  Safe Transporter

  Sunset Shipping

  July 1971

  15 October 1991

  Safe Truck

  Safe Truck Shipping

  1976

  3 April 1991

  Scott Protector

  Ondur Shipping

  1984

  3 December 1991

  Seaboard Capella

  Sunset Shipping

  1968

  24 May 1991

  Seaboard Castor

  Seaboard Offshore

  1947

  23 December 1991

  Seaboard Illustrious

  Seaboard Offshore

  September 1966

  6 March 1991

  Seaboard Implacable

  Seaboard Offshore

  June 1964

  21 February 1991

  Seaboard Integrity

  Seaboard Offshore

  December 1968

  16 December 1991

  Seaboard Intrepid

  Seaboard Offshore

  April 1968

  16 December 1991

  Seaboard Invincible

  Seaboard Offshore

  September 1970

  16 December 1991

  Seaboard Sapphire

  Sunset Shipping

  1980

  21 March 1991

  Seaboard Sceptre

  Sunset Shipping

  1981

  25 January 1992

  Seaboard Sentry

  Sunset Shipping

  1979

  28 June 1991

  Seaboard Skua

  Sunset Shipping

  1972

  24 January 1992

  Seaboard Snipe

  Sunset Shipping

  1972

  10 July 1991

  Seaboard Sovereign

  Sunset Shipping

  1979

  21 March 1991

  Seaboard Support

  Sunset Shipping

  1979

  31 December 1991

  Seaboard Supreme

  Sunset Shipping

  1981

  21 May 1991

  Seaboard Swallow

  Sunset Shipping

  1972

  8 April 1991

  Seaboard Swan

  Sunset Shipping

  October 1971

  30 April 1991

  Seaboard Swift

  Sunset Shipping

  1972

  23 August 1991

  Shetland Service

  Offshore Marine

  January 1973

  29 July 1991

  St. Anne

  Colen Shipping Ltd.

  September 1962

  3 January 1992

  St. Elizabeth

  Colen Shipping Ltd.

  July 1962

  3 January 1992

  St. Kitts

  Colne Shipping Ltd.

  March 1964

  20 December 1991

  St. Louis

  Colne Shipping Ltd.

  June 1962

  16 January 1992

  St. Luke

  Colne Shipping Ltd.

  March 1961

  8 January 1992

  St. Patrick

  Colne Shipping Ltd.

  October 1975

  10 January 1992

  St. Paul

  Colne Shipping Ltd.

  November 1961

  17 January 1992

  St. Phillip

  Colne Shipping Ltd.

  February 1975

  16 January 1992

  Stirling Snipe

  Stirling Shipping Co.

  July 1982

  22 May 1991

  Stirling Teal

  Stirling Shipping Co.

  May 1982

  9 May 1991

  Tempest

  Wijsmuller BV

  March 1977

  25 July 1991

  Togo

  Golden Arrow Boats

  October 1965

  2 May 1991

  Toisa Conqueror

  Toisa Marine

  December 1976

  7 November 1991

  Toisa Lynx

  Toisa Marine

  August 1983

  21 February 1991

  Toisa Panther

  Toisa Marine

  February 1984

  19 July 1991

  Toisa Petrel

  Toisa Marine

  1983

  28 August 1991

  Toisa Puffin

  Toisa Marine

  1980

  17 September 1991

  Toisa Teal

  Screen Shipping

  1981

  16 January 1992

  Toisa Tiger

  Toisa Marine

  April 1983

  4 July 1991

  Toisa Widgeon

  Screen Shipping

  1981

  10 December 1991

  Umberleigh

  William H. I.

  July 1960

  19 July 1991

  Veesea Emerald

  Gem Shipping

  1980

  29 April 1991

  Veesea Hurricane

  Storm Shipping

  1975

  21 June 1991

  Veesea Sapphire

  Gem Shipping

  1977

  16 December 1991

  Veesea Storm

  Storm Shipping

  1975

  12 August 1991

  Veesea Tempest

  Storm Shipping

  1974

  21 November 1991

  Veesea Topaz

  Gem Shipping

  1978

  6 February 1992

  Veesea Tornado

  Storm Shipping

  1974

  7 February 1992

  Veesea Typhoon

  Typhoon Seas Ltd.

  1976

  7 February 1992

  Woodleigh

  Putford Enterprises

  January 1960

  3 January 1992

  1 Date of registration has been compiled from the official date of build.

  Forth Ports Authority
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will detail his reasons for consenting to the public flotation of the Forth ports authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Forth ports authority submitted proposals to my right hon. and learned Friend for the privatisation of its undertaking by means of a flotation.154
  My right hon. and learned Friend was satisfied that they were in accordance with the provisions of the Ports Act 1991. On this basis he was able to give the authority his consent in principle.

  Shipping Report
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations in the joint Government/industry working party report on "British Shipping: Challenges and Opportunities".

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The joint working party made five basic recommendations, covering simplification of the procedures and regulations surrounding registration; review of the nationality rules applying to officers on British ships; creation of a more flexible framework for registration law; continued pressure to secure liberalisation of cabotage, and a more competitive financial framework, in Europe; and emphasis on raising the profile, and revising the structure, of marine training.

  Under the first of these, a number of changes have already been achieved, including the introduction of simplified procedures and regulations regarding the type approval of ships' equipment, and the establishment of arrangements under which surveyors in the British dependent territories can survey vessels on behalf of the United Kingdom where this is more convenient for the owners or operators of the vessels concerned.

  We are also nearing completion of a review of the nationality requirements imposed on senior British Merchant Navy officers; and have continued to press for a more liberal competitive environment in Europe.

  Changes to registration law need primary legislation, for which we are seeking an early opportunity. In the meantime, considerable preparatory work has already been undertaken.

  The final recommendation, focussed on training, is primarily a matter for the shipping industry itself, although the Government are closely involved in a current review of the structure of seafarers' training and certification. The Chamber of Shipping last year produced a report setting out its wider thoughts on future training needs. It has also assured us that the industry continues to attach great importance to the subject.

  Wick Airport
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the implications for safety and the continuing viability of Wick airport in Caithness of the proposal to withdraw Meteorological Office observers from the airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Operating arrangements at Wick airport are a matter for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd., which I understand is considering whether to replace their Meteorological Office observer with an air traffic controller trained in meteorological observation, as has been done previously at some other United Kingdom airports. Whatever the outcome of these considerations, Wick airport will continue to meet the safety standards set by the Civil Aviation Authority. The viability of the airport is not in question.

  Pilot Training
  Sir Robin Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which pilot training organisations in the United Kingdom train pilots for flying in connection 156
  with agricultural operations; and whether his Department recognises such qualifications from any United Kingdom training facilities.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Civil Aviation Authority that in the United Kingdom pilots are not trained specifically in agricultural operations by pilot training organisations. Such training, which is tailored to the needs of the individual pilot, is carried out by the firms who provide aerial agricultural services, under the supervision of the CAA.

  Before a pilot can carry out what are known as "aerial work" flights, such as crop spraying, he must hold a commercial pilot's licence granted by the CAA, and to use pesticides he must also hold a certificate of competence issued, in England and Wales, by the National Proficiency Test Council under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Car Licences
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the income from provisional car licences in 1990–91; and what is the estimated income for 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  The income from provisional car licences in 1990–91 was £17·18 million.

  The estimated income for the same source for 1991–92 is £17·8 million.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the income from short-period licences and the renewal of licences by drivers of 70-plus years in 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  Short-period licences are issued only for medical reasons and there is no charge for their renewal either before or after aged 70. The estimated income in 1991–92 from three-yearly renewals by drivers over age 70 is £820,000.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has on the level of fees for legal aid work by solicitors, and the methods of their computation, in other EC countries.

  The Attorney-General
  Information on all legal aid payments to solicitors is held by the legal aid board or, in the case of Crown court work, by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Information on amounts paid can be provided by various case types. For example, the total of solicitors' costs for magistrates' court work in 1989–90 was £131 million, £300 per case, and in 1990–91 it was £152 million, £346 per case. If the hon. Member is interested in the level of a particular category of fee, the Lord Chancellor will arrange for him to be provided with the relevant information, if it is available. No detailed information is held on the computation of lawyers' fees for publicly funded work in other EC countries. I understand that expenditure on legal aid in France for last year was around 10 per cent. of expenditure in England and Wales; and that in Belgium is less than 1 per cent. Such comparisons are, however, difficult because the legal systems in these countries are different from our own.
  157
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General how much has been spent on legal aid in each of the last five years; what was the average for civil and criminal legal aid bills in each year; and how many cases in each year were legally aided.

  The Attorney-General
  In each of the last five financial years, the amount spent on legal aid in England and Wales was:

  £ million

  Gross

  Net

  1986–87

  458

  363

  1987–88

  537

  434

  1988–89

  610

  478

  1989–90

  715

  569

  1990–91

  852

  684

  Information on average legal aid bills, covering the last five years, is set out in the table.

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91£

  Average bills (Gross)

  Civil matrimonial

  896

  971

  1,123

  1,212

  1,358

  Civil non-matrimonial

  1,075

  1,200

  1,399

  1,594

  1,784

  Criminal1

  245

  281

  309

  349

  398

  Criminal2

  360

  408

  453

  525

  599

  1 In magistrates court.

  2 In higher courts.

  The number of acts of assistance paid for under the various legal aid schemes, including legal advice and assistance and the duty solicitor schemes, were as follows:

  1986–87 (000)

  1987–88 (000)

  1988–89 (000)

  1989–90 (000)

  1990–91 (000)

  Acts of assistance

  1,909

  2,173

  2,139

  2,298

  2,384

  Political Asylum
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he is taking to allocate more resources to enable delays in appeals against refusal to grant political asylum to be reduced; what is the average delay in such appeals being heard at the latest available date; and what was the average delay in such appeals at the comparable period in each of the last three years.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department plans to increase by 10 per cent. the staffing resources available to the immigration appellate authorities (IAA) and to provide additional resources to improve existing accommodation and increase accommodation for the future. These measures will help the IAA to process more effectively all categories of immigration appeals including political asylum claims.

  The IAA keep statistics for immigration cases generally, but do not record separate statistics for asylum cases. However, because of their importance, the IAA aim to give priority to asylum cases whenever possible. It is expected that the multi-terminal case-tracking system recently installed at Thanet house will enable the IAA to produce more detailed information.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers Association (Break-ins)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress has been made in the police inquiries into four break-ins into the headquarters of the Prison Officers Association;

  (2) whether he will set up an inquiry into the recent burglaries of the headquarters of the Prison Officers Association.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. I will not set up an inquiry. The investigation of criminal offences is an operational matter for chief officers of police and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on this investigation while it was continuing.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the use of car boot sales as a means of disposing of stolen goods; and if he will bring forward proposals to deal with this.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no evidence that the majority of traders at car boot sales are anything other than law-abiding citizens. Adequate provision already exists in law to deal with those who use the sales as a means of disposing of stolen goods. It is an offence under section 22 of the Theft Act 1968 for a person to handle stolen goods if he knows or believes them to be so. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. I therefore have no intention of bringing forward proposals to deal specifically with this type of crime.

  Community Service
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of offenders re-offended(a) while doing community service or (b) after community service in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The available information is published in Home Office statistical bulletins issue 18/83 "Reconvictions of those given Community Service Orders" (HSOB 34/86 "Reconvictions of those given Probation Orders" also refers to it) Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Of the 2,486 persons given CSOs 1278 (51 per cent.) were reconvicted within two years of the start of the order. Of these, 18 per cent. of the total were reconvicted during their CSO, 15 per cent. coincidental with the termination of their order and 18 per cent. after termination.

  The reconviction rate rises to 59 per cent. after three years.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) community service sentences, (b) fines and (c) custodial sentences have been imposed by magistrates in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information for 1990, which is provisional, is given in the table.
  159

  Number of offenders sentenced at magistrates courts for all offences by disposal 19901

  England and Wales

  (thousands)

  11990

  Total sentenced

  1,423·6

  Community based:

  83·4

  Community service order

  27·1

  Fully suspended sentence

  13·3

  Probation order

  36·7

  Supervision order

  6·3

  Fine

  1,184·5

  Custodial sentences:

  19·7

  Partly suspended imprisonment

  0·2

  Unsuspended imprisonment

  13·0

  Young offender institution

  6·5

  Other

  136·0

  1 Provisional

  Drug Seizures, Durham
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug seizures and prosecutions have taken place in the Durham constabulary area in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will list the type of drugs involved.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information on seizures of drug type made by the Durham constabulary is given in table A1.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of the misuse of drugs: seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1990" (area table), a copy of which is in the Library.

  The information regarding prosecutions and drugs involved is given in the table.

  Persons dealt with at court for drugs offences by type of drug 1990: Durham Constabulary

  Durham

  Number of persons

  Total persons

  162

  Cannabis

  43

  LSD

  9

  Heroin

  4

  Amphetamine

  4

  Cocaine

  1

  Other drugs

  2

  1 Of which 61 found guilty.

  Rows do not add to total because a person can be dealt with for offences involving more than one drug type.

  Foundation for Business Responsibilities
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement about the enquiries by the Charity Commissioners into the activities of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Following allegations made in an article in The Observer on 17 November 1991, the trustees of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities have supplied the Charity Commissioners with information about the activities of the charity and its expenditure and receipts. The commissioners have met the chairman of the trustees and have also been in touch with the charity's auditors and inspected the charity's records.

  The Charity Commissioners' inquiries have not yet been concluded.

  Immigration
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants have entered the United Kingdom each year since 1979; and if he will state in each year the countries from which most originated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information on persons accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom in the years 1979–90, by nationality, is given in tables 22 and 14, respectively, of the 1987 and 1990 volumes of the annual Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" (Cm 415 and Cm 1571). These figures are of persons subject to immigration control who are granted indefinite leave to remain here.

  Information on a different basis is produced by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys from the international passenger survey. This defines a migrant to the United Kingdom as a person who has been resident abroad for more than a year, and who on entry states the intention of residing here for a year or more. This information includes British citizens. The appropriate estimates for 1979–90 are given in the 1988 and 1990 issues of the OPCS publication "International Migration" (series MN, Nos. 15 and 17 respectively) in tables 2.1 and 2.5. These figures exclude migration between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Copies of the above publications are in the Library. Information for 1991 is not yet available.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research he has done on the effects of mixing unconvicted and convicted prisoners; and what information he has on the practice of other countries on this matter;

  (2) what representations he has had objecting to the proposed mixing of unconvicted and convicted prisoners in Preston and other prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) has drawn to my attention the viewsn expressed by the secretary of the Preston branch of the Prison Officers Association. These views have also been expressed by the branch at their meetings with management to discuss plans to increase the use of accommodation in the prison.

  The prison rules 1964 provide that unconvicted prisoners should be kept out of contact with convicted prisoners as far as this can reasonably be done, and provided that the policy should not require a prisoner to be deprived unduly of the society of other prisoners. Most local prisons in England and Wales sensibly operate a degree of mixing to enable them to accommodate the inmates remanded or committed to custody by the courts in their catchment areas. This makes obvious sense, particularly where it avoids the need to hold prisoners in police cells, which are entirely unsuitable for the purpose. In some local prisons the regime for those on remand is improved by mixing with those who are convicted.

  As regards practice in other countries, I understand that in a large number the separation of the convicted from the unconvicted is not regarded as obligatory.

  Bail Offenders
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results of his survey of research on reoffending while on bail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) on 6 February 1992.

  Poll Tax
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have had legal proceedings arising from poll tax legislation commenced against them.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is not available from magistrates courts records in the form sought. About 11 million summonses have been issued alleging non-payment of community charge during the period 1 April 1990 to 31 December 1991, but some will have involved the same persons in respect of separate financial years.

  Skateboarding Byelaws
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local authorities who have now adopted the model byelaw relating to the use of skateboards on pavements, roads and footpaths; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since 1978, the Home Office has offered local authorities a model byelaw which prohibits the use of skateboards and roller skates on footways and carriageways to the danger of other persons lawfully using the footway or carriageway. In 1990, the model byelaw was modified to make it an offence for a person using a skateboard or roller skates to cause not only danger but also nuisance or reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the footway or carriageway.

  Our records indicate that 66 local authorities have adopted the 1978 model byelaws, and that to date one local authority has adopted the 1990 model wording. The local authorities are:

  (a) Authorities which have adopted the 1978 model byelaws:

  Adure district council

  Arun district council

  Babergh district council

  Beverley district council

  Birmingham district council

  Bracknell district council

  Broxbourne borough council

  Bury borough council

  Calderdale borough council

  Caradon district council

  Chelmsford borough council

  Chichester district council

  Colchester borough council

  Congleton borough council

  Dover district council

  Fareham borough council

  Gosport borough council

  Gravesham borough council

  Great Yarmouth borough council

  Guildford borough council

  Hart district council

  Hastings borough council

  Horsham district council

  Isles of Scilly council

  Kettering borough council

  Leeds city council

  162

  Lichfield district council

  Luton borough council

  Maldon district council

  Melton district council

  Mid Sussex district council

  Montgomeryshire district council

  Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council

  Newport borough council

  North devon district council

  Peterborough city council

  Poole borough council

  Reading borough council

  Reigate and Banstead borough council

  Rhymney Valley district council

  Rother district council

  Salisbury district council

  Scarborough borough council

  Sedgemoor district council

  Shepway district council

  Slough borough council

  Southampton city council

  Southend-on-Sea borough council

  South Lakeland district council

  South Northamptonshire district council

  South Shropshire district council

  South Tyneside borough council

  South Wight borough council

  Stoke-on-Trent city council

  Sutton borough council

  Tendring district council

  Thanet district council

  Tunbridge Wells borough council

  Warrington borough council

  Wokingham district council

  Woodspring district council

  Worcester city council

  Worthing borough council

  Wrexham Maelor borough council

  Wychavon district council

  Wycombe district council

  (b) Authorities which have adopted the 1990 model byelaws:

  Stratford-on-Avon district council

  Metropolitan Police (Community Events)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether it is the usual practice for the Metropolitan police to charge for attendance at community and charity events;

  (2) what has been the total cost of the policing of the Notting Hill carnival in each of the last three years; and what contribution towards that cost was made by the carnival organisers in each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that it is not the usual practice to charge for police attendance at community and charity events.

  The estimated additional costs of policing the Notting Hill carnival were:

  Year

  Additional Costs £

  1989

  1,111,000

  1990

  1,606,000

  1991

  1,554,000

  The carnival organisers have made no contribution towards the cost of policing this event.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC countries currently offer fiscal incentives for the purchase of three-way catalytic converters; what taxes are levied in the United Kingdom on sales of catalytic converters and at what rate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the United Kingdom, VAT is levied on sales of catalytic converters at the standard rate of 17·5 per cent. I have no information on any fiscal incentives for the purchase of three-way catalytic converters in other EC countries.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the expenditure in each year since 1979, in real and constant prices, of Government expenditure in(a) agriculture, forestry and fishing, (b)

  (a) Total benefits paid to unemployed people1 (£ million cash)

  (b) Total expenditure from the Redundancy Fund (£ million cash)

  (c) (a) plus (b) as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (Percentage)

  1983–84

  5,440

  427

  1·9

  1984–85

  6,320

  333

  2·0

  1985–86

  6,960

  344

  2·0

  1986–87

  7,310

  246

  2·0

  1987–88

  6,650

  81

  1·6

  1988–89

  5,240

  70

  1·1

  1989–90

  4,310

  66

  0·9

  1990–91

  5,040

  145

  0·9

  1991–922

  7,360

  128

  1·3

  1 Figures include unemployment benefit, principal income-related benefits and payments from the social fund to unemployed people and their families.

  2 Estimates in current published plans.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information on the growth of pension and other funds given in his answer of 7 March 1984,Official Report, column 581.

  Mr. Maples
  The latest annual estimates for the period 1982 to 1990, the latest year for which a figure is available, are given below. Updated figures for earlier periods are available on the CSO database, series AALV, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Life Assurance and Pensions Schemes Net increase in amount available for investment

  £ million

  1982

  14,980

  1983

  15,938

  1984

  18,518

  1985

  19,538

  1986

  20,510

  1987

  20,840

  1988

  22,659

  1989

  30,505

  1990

  33,655

  164
  industrial development, (c) energy, (d) infrastructure, (e) environmental protection, (f) health, (g) social development and services, (h) earth and atmosphere, (i) advancement of knowledge, (j) civil space, (k) defence and (l) not elsewhere classified.

  Mr. Mellor
  The available information on general government expenditure by main function since 1978–79 is given, in cash and real terms, in tables 2·2 and 2·3 of the statistical supplement to the 1991 Autumn Statement (Cm. 1920). Corresponding information for the other areas of expenditure requested is not available or could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Unemployment and Redundancy Pay
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information on unemployment benefit and redundancy payments given in his answer of 27 July 1983,Official Report, columns 449–50.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mortgage Subsidies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to prohibit the payment of mortgage subsidies by banks and other lenders to their employees; and what is his estimate of the gross value of such subsidies.

  Mr. Maude
  No. I have no firm data on the gross value of these particular subsidies, although the total net taxable value of beneficial loans made by all employers is estimated to be about £180 million in 1991–92.

  Food (VAT)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the zero-rating for VAT of those items of food which are currently zero-rated is safeguarded until at least December 1996.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Yes.

  Wines (Excise Duty)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy with regard to the minimum level of excise duty on(a) still table wine and (b) sparkling wine, that should be applied within the European Community.
  165
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The United Kingdom has consistently argued that it does not consider centrally determined duty rates as necessary for the completion of the single market, and that member states should be free to set their own rates of duty. The Government are prepared to accept a minimum zero rate for both still and sparkling wines, provided that wine is treated as an excisable product and remains within the control system for intra-EC movements of goods subject to excise duties.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the value of the main tax reliefs and allowances and the saving that would occur if these were restricted to the basic rate of tax.

  Mr. Maude
  A table showing the cost of direct tax allowances and reliefs in 1991–92 was given in appendix D of the Autumn Statement statistical supplement Cm 1920 published in January 1992.

  It is estimated that the yield from restricting all of the main income tax allowances and reliefs to the basic rate would be some £2 billion at 1991–92 levels of income.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the inward investment by the United Kingdom from(a) Japan, (b) the United States of America and (c)Korea, for each year from 1978 to 1991, (i) in real terms at 1991 prices, (ii) as a proportion of total capital investment in the United Kingdom and (iii) as a proportion of total capital investment in the EC.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: The information available on net inward investment in the United Kingdom by Japanese and United States companies is expressed at 1990 prices by adjusting the actual investment by the changes in the latest available implied gross domestic product deflator; and as a percentage of total investment by all other countries in the United Kingdom.

  Information for investment in 1990 will be available in the next month or so. Information for investment by Korea is not available.

  Year

  Japanese net investment (£ million, 1990 prices)

  Per cent.

  US net investment(£ million, 1990 prices)

  Per cent.

  1978

  -10

  —

  321

  64·2

  1979

  23

  2·9

  452

  57·1

  1980

  8

  0·6

  1,039

  75·2

  1981

  105

  17·7

  71

  11·9

  1982

  -31

  —

  206

  27·9

  1983

  117

  8·2

  775

  54·8

  1984

  -4

  —

  1,079

  —

  1985

  94

  3·3

  1,282

  44·8

  1986

  34

  0·9

  989

  26·1

  1987

  657

  10·0

  1,018

  15·4

  1988

  768

  8·9

  375

  4·4

  1989

  1,121

  7·3

  5,344

  34·8

  Source: Central Statistical Office

  Notes:

  1. Net investment comprises investment less disinvestment and includes unremitted profits as net investment.

  2. A minus sign indicates net disinvestment. In 1984 there was overall a net disinvestment by overseas companies in the UK.

  3. Data prior to 1984 exclude oil companies.
  166
  Fully comparable information on direct inward investment in the European Community (EC) from outside the EC is not available. However, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates of United States and Japanese direct investment in the UK as a percentage of direct investment in all EC countries show:

  Percentage

  Years

  United States

  Japan

  1982–84

  53

  19

  1985–87

  34

  34

  1988–89

  62

  42

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list policies of a financial nature which have been pursued by Her Majesty's Government since 1979 which have been of assistance to the United Kingdom merchant fleet.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 17 February 1992]: The list sets out the financial measures which have been of particular assistance to the shipping industry since 1979.

  Writing-down allowances
  In 1985 the capital allowance rules were changed to allow capital expenditure to be written down for tax purposes from the date on which it was incurred rather than from the time the asset was brought into use. These new arrangements are of particular importance for ships where stage payments are normally made as construction proceeds. Also in 1985, the special rules which provide that writing down allowances for ships can be used more flexibly than those for other forms of capital expenditure were extended to second-hand ships—previously they applied only to new ships.

  Business expansion scheme
  In 1986 the business expansion scheme was extended to include ship chartering as a qualifying activity. Ship operating and chartering companies have an annual finance limit of £5 million (as do private rented housing companies) instead of the £750,000 limit for other trading companies.

  Foreign earnings deduction for seafarers
  In 1988 the length of time which seafarers may spend in tehe United Kingdom without losing foreign earnings deductions was extended from 62 days, which is still the concession allowed to other workers with a significant overseas component to their jobs, to 90 days. In 1991 the concession for seafarers was extended to 183 days.

  Training and crew relief costs
  The 1988 Merchant Shipping Bill introduced two schemes to help the industry:

  (a) Government assistance for training (GAFT), under which the Government provides funds equivalent to half the cost of training officer cadets. The budget for GAFT is about £3·5 million per annum.

  (b) The crew relief costs scheme, under which the Government assists with the costs of transporting United Kingdom-based crews to and from United Kingdom-flagged vessels in distant waters. The budget for this scheme is about £5 million per annum.

  Children's Car Seats
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total revenue from value added tax on children's car seats in motor cars in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: I regret that information on which to base an estimate is not available.

ENERGY

  Mine Gas Escapes
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what inquiries his Department has made into the leakage of methane gas from closed coal mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None. I am, however, aware that the Department of the Environment is commissioning research into methane from abandoned coal mines. My Department is sponsoring a review by the Watt committee of measurement methods and available data relating to methane emissions from various sources.

  Energy Single Market
  Mr. Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made by EC member states towards providing for a single market in energy services with respect in particular to the free cross-border transmission of energy, the permitting of cross-border investment by one energy company in another, and third party access to a European-wide transmission network.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The European Commission adopted proposals on 22 January which represent the second phase of the internal energy market. The United Kingdom fully supports the Commission's proposals which, if adopted by the Council, will represent a significant liberalisation of the European Community's electricity and gas sectors. Copies of the proposals will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the travel-to-work areas which do not have assisted area status where the unemployment is higher than in the Bridlington and Driffield travel-to-work area;

  (2) if he will list the assisted areas which have a lower unemployment rate than the Bridlington and Driffield travel-to-work area.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information on unemployment rates by travel-to-work areas is available, on the unadjusted basis only, from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Women's Earnings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the number of women who have earnings below(a) the tax threshold and (b) the national insurance threshold, broken down into married women, lone parents and single women at the latest date.

  Mr. Forth
  Broad estimates, based on the new earnings survey and estimates of the number of employees in employment, are that in April 1991 there were 21 million women employees earning less than the PAYE threshold, of whom 21 million earned less than the national insurance lower earnings limit. Using projections from the family expenditure survey, it is estimated that approximately 75 per cent. of each of these categories were married women, 5 per cent. lone parents and 20 per cent. single women.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Residential Special Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to enable residential special schools to opt out of local authority control.

  Mr. Fallon
  We have no such plans.

  Budget Shortfall, Staffordshire
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will meet leaders of Staffordshire county council and head teachers to discuss the remaining shortfall on the education budget arising out of the teachers' pay award.

  Mr. Fallon
  No. The additional grant which the Government propose to make available, together with the 7·2 per cent. increase in education spending allowed for in the 1992–93 local authority spending finance settlement, should give authorities adequate headroom to cover the cost of the teachers' pay award in full.

  BCCI
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which universities held accounts with the Bank of Commerce and Credit International; and how much money was lost by each university at its collapse.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Detailed information on universities' investments is not held centrally. Monitoring of the financial position of institutions is a matter for the Universities Funding Council. The council understands that no university had invested its own funds in the Bank of Commerce and Credit International.

  Further Education
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the average unit costs for salaries and other recurrent expenditure categories(a) in further education institutions and (b) in sixth form colleges for the academic years 1988–89 and 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on expenditure and per student spending is collected on a financial year basis. For the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90, spending per student in further education institutions was as shown in the table. Information on actual spending in sixth form colleges was not collected separately.

  Net institutional expenditure per full time equivalent student

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Salaries and wages

  2,360

  2,335

  Other recurrent institutional costs

  500

  450

  Total

  2,860

  2,785

  Notes:

  1. The expenditure data used to derive these figures cover all college-based recurrent spending including teaching and non-teaching staff salaries, premises costs, equipment and supplies, less sales and other miscellaneous receipts but not tuition fees income. They exclude spending on central administration and support services
  170
  such as transport, as well as all capital expenditure.

  2. The figures are derived from LEAs' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment and of their student enrolments to the Department of Education and Science.

  3. 1988–89 data include but 1989–90 data exclude students and expenditure for establishments which transferred to the PCFC sector.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average class size(a) in further education institutions and (b) in sixth form colleges for the academic years 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Eggar
  The average class sizes were:

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Further education institutions1

  14·5

  14·7

  Sixth form colleges

  12·8

  12·6

  1 Includes LEA maintained further education and tertiary colleges,

  Primary School Places
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the methodology adopted by Surrey county council for forecasting future demand for primary school places carried out for their current age of transfer reorganisation proposals; what are his Department's guidelines on the methodology to be used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  The reorganisation proposals published by Surrey county council will be decided by my right hon. and learned Friend. As they are currently being considered, we cannot comment at this stage on any of the issues involved, including Surrey's forecasting methodology, as this could be held to have pre-judged our eventual decision.

  The Department's guidelines on how authorities should approach the publication of statutory proposals are contained within circular 3/87 "Providing for Quality: The Pattern of Organisation to Age 19", a copy of which is available in the Library. Annex 2 provides guidelines on forecasting pupil numbers.

  Special Needs Pupils
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many pupils in each local education authority are recorded on form SEN 2 as having statements of special educational need and attending maintained special schools;

  (2) how many pupils in each local education authority are recorded on form SEN 2 as having special educational needs and are attending maintained primary, middle and secondary schools;

  (3) how many pupils in each local education authority are recorded on form SEN 2 as having special educational needs and are attending non-maintained and independent special schools under arrangements made by the local education authority.

  Mr. Fallon
  Form SEN2 for 1991 asked LEAs to record information on the placements arranged for children for whom statements of special educational needs were newly made in 1990. Details as submitted by LEAs in respect of the placements made for these children at maintained special schools, ordinary schools, non-maintained special schools and independent schools are given in the table.
  171

  Placements made for children with statements newly made in 1990

  Maintained

  Non-maintained

  ordinary schools

  special schools

  special schools

  independent schools

  Inner London Boroughs

  City

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  47

  56

  10

  0

  Greenwich

  103

  111

  3

  0

  Hackney

  49

  83

  11

  0

  Hammersmith

  19

  30

  0

  2

  Islington

  27

  61

  0

  0

  Kensington

  16

  27

  4

  1

  Lambeth

  112

  133

  0

  5

  Lewisham

  13

  28

  2

  0

  Southwark

  56

  69

  2

  0

  Tower Hamlets

  17

  31

  2

  0

  Wandsworth

  34

  23

  1

  12

  Westminster

  42

  52

  0

  12

  Outer London Boroughs

  Barking

  49

  14

  1

  1

  Barnet

  29

  48

  5

  1

  Bexley

  115

  66

  2

  19

  Brent

  15

  20

  0

  2

  Bromley

  81

  35

  2

  7

  Croydon

  46

  55

  1

  17

  Ealing

  17

  59

  13

  25

  Enfield

  9

  6

  1

  3

  Haringey

  34

  28

  2

  8

  Harrow

  59

  11

  0

  4

  Havering

  81

  18

  4

  3

  Hillingdon

  30

  28

  4

  11

  Hounslow

  175

  56

  0

  4

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  40

  25

  0

  3

  Merton

  49

  37

  0

  2

  Newham

  55

  43

  0

  1

  Redbridge

  28

  46

  5

  3

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  53

  14

  0

  1

  Sutton

  62

  28

  1

  2

  Waltham Forest

  47

  49

  0

  1

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  34

  259

  0

  11

  Coventry

  15

  133

  0

  1

  Dudley

  42

  8

  1

  4

  Sandwell

  6

  45

  0

  0

  Solihull

  26

  93

  0

  0

  Walsall

  89

  59

  1

  3

  Wolverhampton

  78

  33

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  57

  124

  4

  6

  Liverpool

  68

  501

  17

  4

  St. Helens

  75

  48

  11

  2

  Sefton

  70

  74

  2

  20

  Wirral

  47

  76

  3

  7

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  43

  60

  5

  0

  Bury

  105

  29

  7

  0

  Manchester

  14

  84

  8

  6

  Oldham

  158

  47

  0

  4

  Rochdale

  68

  87

  0

  2

  Salford

  40

  19

  1

  1

  Stockport

  199

  44

  0

  1

  Tameside

  62

  43

  0

  1

  Trafford

  65

  56

  2

  1

  Wigan

  47

  253

  3

  0

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  83

  9

  3

  0

  Doncaster

  55

  90

  11

  6

  Rotherham

  120

  113

  31

  0

  Sheffield

  3

  122

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  38

  36

  1

  0

  Calderdale

  43

  1

  1

  0

  Kirklees

  171

  63

  1

  0

  172 173

  Maintained

  Non-maintained

  ordinary schools

  special schools

  special schools

  independent schools

  Leeds

  249

  65

  0

  3

  Wakefield

  23

  47

  2

  6

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  48

  34

  0

  2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  38

  58

  4

  2

  North Tyneside

  97

  54

  1

  13

  South Tyneside

  39

  31

  2

  2

  Sunderland

  62

  74

  3

  0

  English counties

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  77

  241

  3

  12

  Bedfordshire

  117

  135

  5

  7

  Berkshire

  246

  245

  4

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  403

  202

  23

  16

  Cambridgeshire

  62

  48

  1

  0

  Cheshire

  428

  112

  5

  6

  Cleveland

  156

  173

  2

  6

  Cornwall

  241

  2

  0

  2

  Cumbria

  292

  21

  1

  1

  Derbyshire

  646

  78

  0

  8

  Devon

  569

  188

  12

  19

  Dorset

  111

  134

  20

  9

  Durham

  67

  66

  12

  2

  East Sussex

  48

  149

  21

  19

  Essex

  263

  263

  8

  20

  Gloucestershire

  141

  125

  3

  8

  Hampshire

  589

  379

  41

  13

  Hereford and Worcester

  149

  194

  7

  11

  Hertfordshire

  181

  341

  8

  44

  Humberside

  89

  97

  5

  5

  Isle of Wight

  25

  19

  2

  0

  Kent

  413

  440

  27

  46

  Lancashire

  640

  305

  39

  66

  Leicestershire

  271

  175

  4

  4

  Lincolnshire

  417

  216

  16

  16

  Norfolk

  400

  83

  5

  11

  North Yorkshire

  221

  75

  8

  6

  Northamptonshire

  91

  121

  0

  4

  Northumberland

  153

  3

  3

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  45

  157

  0

  6

  Oxfordshire

  47

  83

  4

  3

  Shropshire

  366

  59

  1

  1

  Somerset

  89

  52

  12

  16

  Staffordshire

  196

  326

  2

  5

  Suffolk

  344

  58

  5

  4

  Surrey

  203

  189

  29

  5

  Warwickshire

  85

  145

  6

  9

  West Sussex

  63

  159

  25

  18

  Wiltshire

  536

  63

  7

  37

  Note. Figures are provisional.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many pupils in each local education authority attend non-maintained and independent schools for the purposes of special educational treatment.

  Mr. Fallon
  The table sets out the number of pupils in each authority who were attending non-maintained and independent schools in Janaury 1991 for the purposes of special educational treatment.

  Number1 of pupils2 at non-maintained special schools

  Number1 of pupils2 at independent schools receiving special educational treatment

  City

  0

  0

  Camden

  31

  2

  Greenwich

  2

  33

  174

  Number1 of pupils2 at non-maintained special schools

  Number1 of pupils2 at independent schools receiving special educational treatment

  Hackney

  10

  29

  Hammersmith

  20

  11

  Islington

  9

  17

  Kensington

  10

  6

  Lambeth

  37

  0

  Lewisham

  15

  22

  Southwark

  4

  28

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  0

  Wandsworth

  13

  43

  Westminster

  4

  31

  Barking

  16

  9

  Barnet

  45

  59

  Bexley

  44

  63

  Brent

  32

  47

  Bromley

  46

  44

  175

  Number1 of pupils2 at non-maintained special schools

  Number1 of pupils2 at independent schools receiving special educational treatment

  Croydon

  37

  139

  Ealing

  81

  104

  Enfield

  22

  47

  Haringey

  19

  49

  Harrow

  61

  6

  Havering

  36

  26

  Hillingdon

  34

  71

  Hounslow

  25

  43

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  15

  66

  Merton

  12

  32

  Newham

  22

  16

  Redbridge

  68

  35

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  4

  22

  Sutton

  14

  51

  Waltham Forest

  14

  8

  Birmingham

  25

  70

  Coventry

  14

  13

  Dudley

  12

  29

  Sandwell

  19

  10

  Solihull

  2

  30

  Walsall

  9

  10

  Wolverhampton

  6

  25

  Knowsley

  17

  12

  Liverpool

  77

  12

  St. Helens

  66

  19

  Sefton

  46

  73

  Wirral

  59

  63

  Bolton

  50

  8

  Bury

  46

  1

  Manchester

  91

  19

  Oldham

  39

  0

  Rochdale

  17

  23

  Salford

  8

  8

  Stockport

  51

  58

  Tameside

  17

  0

  Trafford

  33

  16

  Wigan

  115

  35

  Barnsley

  18

  0

  Doncaster

  46

  17

  Rotherham

  121

  0

  Sheffield

  2

  8

  Bradford

  42

  0

  Calderdale

  9

  19

  Kirklees

  47

  14

  Leeds

  3

  11

  Wakefield

  49

  39

  Gateshead

  33

  14

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  37

  15

  North Tyneside

  24

  40

  South Tyneside

  26

  18

  Sunderland

  48

  8

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  18

  Avon

  18

  190

  Bedfordshire

  61

  85

  Berkshire

  152

  96

  Buckinghamshire

  67

  123

  Cambridge

  0

  64

  All full-time pupils in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools in each local education authority in England—January 1991

  Primary

  Middle

  Secondary

  201 City

  202

  —

  —

  202 Camden

  9,482

  —

  9,891

  203 Greenwich

  18,322

  —

  13,470

  204 Hackney

  14,732

  —

  7,592

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  8,154

  —

  6,050

  206 Islington

  13,421

  —

  7,223

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  5,922

  —

  3,539

  208 Lambeth

  17,283

  —

  5,955

  209 Lewisham

  17,725

  —

  11,428

  210 Southwark

  18,315

  —

  9,487

  211 Tower Hamlets

  18,134

  —

  10,751

  212 Wandsworth

  14,916

  —

  9,724

  176

  Number1 of pupils2 at non-maintained special schools

  Number1 of pupils2 at independent schools receiving special educational treatment

  Cheshire

  188

  91

  Cleveland

  40

  36

  Cornwall

  19

  66

  Cumbria

  38

  49

  Derbyshire

  79

  47

  Devon

  178

  155

  Dorset

  175

  44

  Durham

  30

  73

  East Sussex

  0

  0

  Essex

  175

  286

  Gloucestershire

  90

  33

  Hampshire

  276

  283

  Hereford and Worcester

  50

  67

  Hertfordshire

  47

  253

  Humbersidc

  68

  41

  Isle of Wight

  34

  3

  Kent

  279

  347

  Lancashire

  233

  220

  Leicestershire

  25

  46

  Lincolnshire

  32

  135

  Norfolk

  41

  85

  North Yorkshire

  83

  54

  Northamptonshire

  34

  61

  Northumberland

  37

  13

  Nottinghamshire

  53

  90

  Oxfordshire

  52

  33

  Shropshire

  23

  24

  Somerset

  70

  76

  Staffordshire

  8

  39

  Suffolk

  68

  105

  Surrey

  198

  83

  Warwickshire

  63

  50

  West Sussex

  195

  109

  Wiltshire

  106

  211

  Total for England

  5,512

  5,780

  1 As recorded in returns to the Department of Education and Science.

  2 Pupils aged five and over (as at 31 August 1990) for whom the local education authority was paying full tuition fees.

  Pupil Statistics
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time pupils of all ages there are, for each local education authority in England, in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  The numbers of full-time pupils of all ages, including pupils aged under five, in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools in each local education authority in England as at January 1991 are shown in the table.
  177

  Primary

  Middle

  Secondary

  213 Westminster

  8,535

  —

  7,043

  301 Barking

  13,479

  —

  8,673

  302 Barnet

  21,097

  —

  17,953

  303 Bexley

  17,007

  —

  14,048

  304 Brent

  19,782

  —

  10,941

  305 Bromley

  19,300

  —

  15,414

  306 Croydon

  24,356

  —

  15,420

  307 Ealing

  17,389

  7,320

  11,028

  308 Enfield

  20,765

  —

  15,958

  309 Haringey

  16,156

  —

  8,478

  310 Harrow

  12,373

  5,470

  7,819

  311 Havering

  18,179

  —

  15,626

  312 Hillingdon

  16,599

  —

  12,911

  313 Hounslow

  16,735

  —

  12,743

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  8,701

  —

  7,135

  315 Merton

  6,803

  6,061

  5,965

  316 Newham

  20,340

  —

  13,040

  317 Redbridge

  16,908

  —

  13,484

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  8,724

  —

  6,977

  319 Sutton

  10,986

  —

  10,365

  320 Waltham Forest

  16,877

  —

  11,780

  330 Birmingham

  97,329

  3,251

  62,589

  331 Coventry

  27,109

  —

  17,855

  332 Dudley

  26,566

  307

  15,727

  333 Sandwell

  26,954

  —

  18,181

  334 Solihull

  17,234

  —

  13,774

  335 Walsall

  24,199

  —

  18,234

  336 Wolverhampton

  21,138

  —

  15,264

  340 Knowsley

  15,740

  —

  8,941

  341 Liverpool

  44,394

  —

  28,765

  342 St. Helens

  15,894

  —

  12,416

  343 Sefton

  24,591

  —

  18,534

  344 Wirral

  28,897

  —

  20,800

  350 Bolton

  24,558

  —

  17,103

  351 Bury

  15,162

  —

  10,163

  352 Manchester

  42,612

  —

  23,957

  353 Oldham

  22,445

  —

  15,304

  354 Rochdale

  20,102

  —

  12,437

  355 Salford

  21,503

  —

  12,879

  356 Stockport

  23,746

  —

  17,333

  357 Tameside

  19,990

  —

  13,857

  358 Trafford

  17,597

  —

  10,731

  359 Wigan

  27,650

  —

  20,548

  370 Barnsley

  18,412

  —

  12,123

  371 Doncaster

  21,136

  9,554

  15,217

  372 Rotherham

  22,109

  —

  17,539

  373 Sheffield

  32,469

  7,636

  23,845

  380 Bradford

  33,740

  23,685

  20,210

  381 Calderdale

  17,799

  —

  12,519

  382 Kirklees

  31,549

  3,322

  22,713

  383 Leeds

  46,935

  16,611

  34,468

  384 Wakefield

  22,006

  7,269

  15,881

  390 Gateshead

  16,478

  —

  11,529

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  20,490

  3,312

  13,189

  392 North Tyneside

  13,760

  5,461

  9,268

  393 South Tyneside

  13,869

  —

  8,798

  394 Sunderland

  27,463

  —

  18,245

  420 Isles of Scilly

  170

  —

  112

  901 Avon

  74,040

  —

  52,513

  902 Bedfordshire

  35,921

  17,104

  26,507

  903 Berkshire

  52,519

  5,186

  42,839

  904 Buckinghamshire

  41,408

  15,686

  33,306

  905 Cambridgeshire

  55,930

  168

  39,831

  906 Cheshire

  83,207

  —

  63,195

  907 Cleveland

  55,223

  —

  38,784

  908 Cornwall

  36,350

  —

  28,416

  909 Cumbria

  40,126

  —

  30,370

  910 Derbyshire

  74,595

  —

  55,570

  911 Devon

  71,017

  3,736

  54,215

  912 Dorset

  35,783

  11,137

  30,588

  913 Durham

  51,341

  —

  36,386

  914 East Sussex

  44,746

  —

  33,689

  915 Essex

  118,566

  —

  96,169

  916 Gloucestershire

  41,521

  —

  31,658

  917 Hampshire

  102,463

  21,366

  82,259

  918 Hereford and Worcester

  43,697

  15,027

  34,196

  919 Hertfordshire

  73,713

  3,111

  61,618

  920 Humberside

  74,505

  —

  57,522

  178 179

  Primary

  Middle

  Secondary

  921 Isle of Wight

  6,772

  5,268

  4,862

  922 Kent

  116,672

  4,128

  92,468

  923 Lancashire

  122,442

  —

  82,332

  924 Leicestershire

  74,220

  5,273

  53,907

  925 Lincolnshire

  46,540

  —

  35,321

  926 Norfolk

  42,056

  16,475

  39,690

  927 North Yorkshire

  52,867

  378

  42,354

  928 Northamptonshire

  46,805

  9,402

  34,018

  929 Northumberland

  18,357

  14,878

  13,306

  930 Nottinghamshire

  76,473

  2,710

  59,332

  931 Oxfordshire

  37,044

  4,092

  28,775

  932 Shropshire

  32,545

  —

  26,538

  933 Somerset

  33,839

  4,152

  23,266

  934 Staffordshire

  86,935

  6,580

  60,634

  935 Suffolk

  39,336

  16,043

  30,287

  936 Surrey

  45,213

  27,017

  42,172

  937 Warwickshire

  29,008

  14,432

  24,511

  938 West Sussex

  41,723

  9,687

  37,641

  939 Wiltshire

  43,561

  1,231

  31,293

  ENGLAND

  3,630,573

  333,526

  2,671,297

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time pupils of all ages there are in maintained special schools in each local education authority in England.

  Mr. Fallon
  The numbers of full-time pupils of all ages, including pupils aged under five, in maintained special schools in each local education authority in England as at January 1991 are shown in the table.

  All full-time pupils in maintained special schools in each local Education Authority in England—January 19911

  Full-time pupils in maintained special schools Numbers

  201 City

  —

  202 Camden

  371

  203 Greenwich

  755

  204 Hackney

  654

  205 Hammersmith and Fulham

  498

  206 Islington

  322

  207 Kensington and Chelsea

  97

  208 Lambeth

  906

  209 Lewisham

  491

  210 Southwark

  495

  211 Tower Hamlets

  495

  212 Wandsworth

  783

  213 Westminster

  163

  301 Barking

  162

  302 Barnet

  337

  303 Bexley

  269

  304 Brent

  370

  305 Bromley

  372

  306 Croydon

  497

  307 Ealing

  433

  308 Enfield

  411

  309 Haringey

  338

  310 Harrow

  222

  311 Havering

  237

  312 Hillingdon

  372

  313 Hounslow

  424

  314 Kingston upon Thames

  233

  315 Merton

  237

  316 Newham

  437

  317 Redbridge

  372

  318 Richmond upon Thames

  155

  319 Sutton

  291

  320 Waltham Forest

  757

  330 Birmingham

  2,889

  331 Coventry

  809

  180

  Full-time pupils in maintained special schools Numbers

  332 Dudley

  570

  333 Sandwell

  845

  334 Solihull

  242

  335 Walsall

  553

  336 Wolverhampton

  498

  340 Knowsley

  627

  341 Liverpool

  1,558

  342 St. Helens

  478

  343 Sefton

  459

  344 Wirral

  719

  350 Bolton

  461

  351 Bury

  287

  352 Manchester

  1,509

  353 Oldham

  618

  354 Rochdale

  528

  355 Salford

  520

  356 Stockport

  432

  357 Tameside

  406

  358 Trafford

  370

  359 Wigan

  809

  370 Barnsley

  187

  371 Doncaster

  717

  372 Rotherham

  615

  373 Sheffield

  854

  380 Bradford

  873

  381 Calderdale

  209

  382 Kirklees

  644

  383 Leeds

  1,051

  384 Wakefield

  631

  390 Gateshead

  374

  391 Newcastle upon Tyne

  652

  392 North Tyneside

  404

  393 South Tyneside

  301

  394 Sunderland

  656

  420 Isles of Scilly

  —

  901 Avon

  1,993

  902 Bedfordshire

  1,086

  903 Berkshire

  1,518

  904 Buckinghamshire

  1,505

  905 Cambridgeshire

  954

  906 Cheshire

  1,418

  907 Cleveland

  1,317

  908 Cornwall

  296

  909 Cumbria

  348

  910 Derbyshire

  1,284

  911 Devon

  1,691

  912 Dorset

  1,059

  913 Durham

  1,045

  181

  Full-time pupils in maintained special schools Numbers

  914 East Sussex

  1,330

  915 Essex

  2,512

  916 Gloucestershire

  1,202

  917 Hampshire

  3,491

  918 Hereford and Worcester

  1,271

  919 Hertfordshire

  1,820

  920 Humberside

  1,177

  921 Isle of Wight

  224

  922 Kent

  3,217

  923 Lancashire

  3,222

  924 Leicestershire

  1,069

  925 Lincolnshire

  1,135

  926 Norfolk

  859

  927 North Yorkshire

  1,009

  928 Northamptonshire

  1,091

  929 Northumberland

  546

  930 Nottinghamshire

  1,941

  931 Oxfordshire

  704

  932 Shropshire

  518

  933 Somerset

  589

  934 Staffordshire

  2,083

  935 Suffolk

  697

  936 Surrey

  1,729

  937 Warwickshire

  1,263

  938 West Sussex

  1,206

  939 Wiltshire

  699

  England

  89,429

  1 Including pupils in maintained hospital schools.

  St. Fidelis School, Erith
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will pay an official visit to St. Fidelis school in Erith to discuss the capital funding of the school and its proposed expansion.

  Mr. Fallon
  The capital funding of the proposed expansion project at St. Fidelis school will be one of the factors considered by my right hon. and learned Friend in his decision on proposals published by the governors, under section 13 of the 1980 Education Act, to enlarge the school significantly. It is not our practice to visit schools which are the subject of statutory proposals; but if we did, it would not be possible to discuss any of the issues involved, as this could be held to have pre-judged our eventual decision on the proposals.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the most recently available estimates for(a) the number of full-time teachers in county secondary schools who teach religious education and who have no post A-level qualification in RE, (b) the numbers of full-time teachers in county secondary schools who teach religious education and who have a post A-level qualification in RE and (c) the number of full-time county secondary teachers with a post A-level qualification in RE who are not teaching the subject.

  Mr. Fallon
  The information requested is not separately available for county secondary schools.

  For all maintained secondary schools in England, the 1988 secondary school staffing survey showed that 14,500 full-time teachers were teaching religious education. Of
  182
  these, 44 per cent, or 6,400 had a post A-level qualification in religious education. The remaining 56 per cent., or 8,100, who had no recorded post A-level qualification in the subject, were providing only 26 per cent, of all tuition periods in religious education. A further 6,900 full-time teachers with a post A-level qualification in religious education were not teaching the subject.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the local education authorities which have adopted agreed syllabuses for religious education since the commencement of the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department does not collect this information. We are aware, however, that some local education authorities have adopted new agreed syllabuses for religious education since 29 September 1988, including:

  Bolton

  Cornwall

  Derbyshire

  Ealing

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Newham

  North Tyneside

  Oldham

  Rotherham

  I believe that other authorities are currently reviewing their syllabuses.

  Christian Worship
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list for each local education authority(a) the number and (b) the percentage of county schools granted total or partial exemption from the requirement to hold broadly Christian acts of worship.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is not available in the form requested. I understand that, in the first year following the Education Reform Act 1988, 32 local education authorities reported that determinations had been granted in respect of one or more of their schools and that four LEAs have reported further determinations granted in the second year. I have requested some further analysis of the information which we have and will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  CD-ROM Technology
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to offer financial assistance for CD-ROM applications for the blind and visually handicapped; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend announced on 25 January a scheme to be jointly funded by the Department, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Open university to develop software to give blind and visually handicapped pupils full access to CD-ROM materials. The scheme is being managed by the National Council for Educational Technology.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he intends to offer further financial support for the CD-ROM application development scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  Yes. As part of the Government's scheme to introduce and extend the curriculum use of CD-ROM
  183
  technology in schools, the Department has invited the National Council for Educational Technology to commission the development of a number of new curriculum discs directly supporting the national curriculum. The Department is making £700,000 available towards the costs which will be shared with the disc developers and publishers.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Disaster Relief Unit
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 10 February 1992,Official Report, column 665, if he will give details of the activities of the emergency aid department, showing in which way its work differs from that of the disaster relief unit which it replaced.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I announced the creation of the ODA's emergency aid department on 14 August 1991. A copy of the announcement has been placed in the Library.

  The emergency aid department incorporates the relief work of the disaster unit and the refugee unit and now has an additional section to deal with the new disaster relief initiative, disaster preparedness and the continuing humanitarian crisis in Iraq.

  Honduras
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans for further assistance to the Government of Honduras.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have agreed to convert the £5 million non-interest bearing loan 1980 to a grant. A formal agreement will be signed in due course with the Government of Honduras, waiving repayments over the period to 2011.

  Population Control
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government will make to the United Nations fund for population activities in 1992.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We will contribute £9 million to the United Nations fund for population activities in 1992. This is a 20 per cent. increase on our 1991 contribution of £7·5 million, which in turn represented an increase of 25 per cent. over the 1990 contribution of £6 million. Britain will, therefore, have increased its core support to UNFPA by 50 per cent. over the last two years.

  Britain's commitment to population as a development priority is very clear, and we aim to further increase the resources available for population assistance under the United Kingdom aid programme. UNFPA will continue to be a major recipient of this assistance.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government have made to the World Food Programme appeal for internally displaced people in Cambodia.
  184
  Mrs. Chalker
  I approved a contribution of £250,000 to the World Food Programme, specifically for the needs of the internally displaced people in Cambodia.

  Overseas Development (Report)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for the library of his Department's Overseas Development Administration the report, "Justice Between Peoples—Justice between Generations", published last December.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 17 February 1992]: An order for this report has been placed with its publisher, the Environment Liaison Centre International (ELCI) in Nairobi, and will be added to the library of the Overseas Development Administration in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. and Mrs. Orton Chirwa
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make further representations on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Orton Chirwa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We will continue to raise the case of Orton and Vera Chirwa with the Malawian Government at every suitable opportunity until they are released.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Malawi to discuss the continuing imprisonment of Mr. and Mrs. Chirwa; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Secretary of State has no plans to visit Malawi. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) on 13 February, column 605.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representations made by Her Majesty's Government to the Malawian Government concerning Mr. and Mrs. Orton Chirwa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government made representations to the Malawian Government on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Chirwa in February and March 1984, October 1986, December 1987, July 1990, December 1991, January 1992 —three times—and February 1992.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department will support attempts by the hon. Member to seek to visit Mr. and Mrs. Orton Chirwa in prison in Malawi.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Any such visit would require the agreement of the Malawian Government. A response to a request by the EC and the United States Governments for access by the International Committee of the Red Cross to all Malawi's prisoners is currently awaited.

  Chemical Weapons Organisation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the location of the seat of the
  185
  international organisation to be established under the chemical weapons convention, currently under negotiation in Geneva.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 26 November 1991, the Dutch ambassador delivered to the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office an aide-memoire on The Hague's candidature to host the International Organisation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. On 3 February this year, the Austrian Foreign Minister gave a memorandum on Vienna's candidature to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Croatia
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to identify the source of the supplies of arms entering Croatia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Security Council has established a committee to monitor military equipment entering Yugoslavia and its former constituent republics in violation of Security Council resolution 713 of 25 September 1991.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration his Department has given to the question of sanctions against Croatia since recognition, in addition to those already in force against Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All aspects of our policy towards Croatia are under constant review.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during the normal process of discussions with the German Government in the last 14 days, the matter of Croatia has been raised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Croatia is regularly discussed both bilaterally with our community partners and multilaterally under European political co-operation.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department will take to ensure that the Government of Croatia adhere to every undertaking given to Her Majesty's Government and the European Community prior to the formal recognition of Croatia's independence.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have made it clear that the development of our relations with Croatia will depend on Croatia's fulfilling its undertakings on minorities' rights.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the Helsinki Watch report on Croatian attrocities against Serbs.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The report referred to has been ordered.

ENVIRONMENT

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve access to the countryside.
  186
  Mr. Baldry
  The rights of way network provides the means by which most people can visit and enjoy the countryside. We are strongly supporting the Countryside Commission in its work with local authorities to improve this network and to bring it all into good order by the year 2000. We have created incentives to landowners to provide greater opportunities for public access through the countryside stewardship scheme, and increased funds for the national park authorities to open up new areas for public enjoyment. We shall announce further measures shortly.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve access to the countryside.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) earlier today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the application of environmental considerations to Government policy as a whole.

  Mr. Heseltine
  This Government have taken a world lead in integrating environmental policies across Departments. We have established two ministerial committees to develop and monitor environmental initiatives, created a "green" Minister in every Government Department and issued guidance which Departments must follow in assessing the environmental impacts of their policies and programmes. The environment remains high on the Government's agenda. We will continue to provide regular and full progress reports on the implementation of our commitments.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent reports he has received about depletion of the ozone layer.

  Mr. Trippier
  Reports have been received from the European arctic stratospheric ozone experiment (EASOE) and from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These show large quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals present in the stratosphere, and low concentrations of ozone have been observed over mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere and in the tropics. It is not yet possible to say unequivocally that chemical depletion of ozone is taking place.

  Carbon Tax
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on progress made with his European Community counterparts on agreements on a Communitywide carbon tax.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) on 17 December 1991, and to this morning's debate in European Standing Committee A.

  NRA Board of Directors
  Dr Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has held discussions with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority concerning the reorganisation of the National Rivers Authority's board of directors.

  Mr. Baldry
  I discuss board appointments with the chairman of the National Rivers Authority whenever there is a need.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many water pollution incidents were the subject of prosecutions in each of the last three years; and what was the total amount levied in fines in each year.

  Mr. Baldry
  The numbers of successful prosecutions for pollution incidents in England and Wales, since the establishment of the National Rivers Authority, are shown, with the total fines imposed.

  Period

  Total number of prosecutions

  Fines (£000)

  1 September 1989 to 31 August 1990

  395

  11,316

  1 September 1990 to 31 August 1991

  559

  773

  1 September 1991 to 30 November 1991

  150

  264

  1 Includes £1 million for Shell UK prosecution.

  Prosecution figures are based on the date of the court hearing. Further information is contained in the NRA's report "Water Pollution Incidents in England and Wales 1990", which was published on 27 January. Prosecutions prior to I September 1989 would have been brought by the water authorities and comprehensive information is not readily available.

  Tidiness
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of his measures to improve the tidiness of Britain.

  Mr. Baldry
  The message that is being received by my Department is that local authorities are responding positively to the new duty to keep their land clear of litter and to the other measures incorporated in part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am sure that this is having a positive impact on the cleanliness of streets, parks and other places.

  Housebuilding
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses were built by local authorities and by housing associations in 1991.

  Sir George Young
  Provisional estimates are that in England, in 1991, 14,600 dwellings were completed by housing associations and 7,800 by local authorities. Housing associations are now the main providers of new subsidised housing: they also provide housing by acquisition, renovation, conversion and other means, and their total output is expected to rise to over 50,000 by 1993–94.
  188
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures for housebuilding in the public sector in the current year to the latest available date; what was the comparable figure for 1978–79; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Provisional estimates are that in England, during the nine months April to December 1991, 5,500 dwellings were completed for local authorities, new towns and Government Departments and 11,900 for housing associations. In April to December 1978 the equivalent figures were 64,500 and 15,700. I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning.

  Rural Housing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will encourage the Housing Corporation to direct a higher proportion of its funds to rural areas.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Housing Corporation's rural programme is being steadily expanded from 1,500 homes this year to 1,850 in 1992–93 and 2,250 in 1993–94. In addition, the corporation has undertaken to make good this year and next a shortfall of over 700 homes against its target for 1990–91.

  Air Quality
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on air quality.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to chapter 11 of the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" (Cm 1200) and to chapter 8 of "This Common Inheritance: The First Year Report" (Cm 1655). These give a full account of our progress in improving air quality and our commitments to further action.

  Local Authorities (Unitary Plans)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the development of unitary plans by local authorities.

  Sir George Young
  One unitary development plan has been adopted. Other metropolitan authorities have plans in preparation.

  Heveningham Hall
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on Heveningham hall.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No. I have nothing to add now to my answer to the hon. Member on 10 December, column 367.

  Redundant Farm Buildings
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidance to local planning authorities to allow for the granting of a greater proportion than hitherto of applications making use of redundant farm buildings.

  Mr. Yeo
  Guidance on the re-use of farm and other rural buildings is in planning policy guidance note 7, "The
  189
  Countryside and the Rural Economy", published in January 1992. This states that proposals should not be rejected unless there are specific and convincing planning reasons that cannot be overcome by attaching reasonable conditions to the planning permission. Unlike the first edition of PPG7, it says that it should not normally be necessary to consider whether the building is no longer needed for its present purposes.

  Mixed Housing Developments
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to promote mixed housing developments of both public and private housing on local authority land; in what proportions; what the position was in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Right to buy, estate action, city challenge, housing action trusts and other initiatives introduced by this Government are already successfully promoting diversification of tenure in areas of local authority housing. Increased competition for housing investment programme resources and the requirement to develop housing strategies will further encourage local authorities to mix the tenure of estates. Details of sales of local authority land and buildings can be found in the quarterly housing and construction statistics published by my Department.

  Recycling
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representation he has received from the Association of District Councils about recycling.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have frequent contact with local authorities and the local authority associations on a wide range of matters concerning recycling.

  Council Estates
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the Government are encouraging tenant participation in the management of council estates.

  Sir George Young
  The Department has increased its grants for the promotion and development of tenant management initiatives on local authority estates by over a third since last year. In addition, it has contributed towards the costs of developing the new national certificate in tenant participation and is grant-aiding moves to establish a national housing and tenant resource centre. Last week it began a national distribution of the tenant participation video and leaflet which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched with the council tenants charter.

  East Thames Corridor
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of the development of the east Thames corridor.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has appointed consultants to examine the opportunities for development in the east Thames corridor. They are considering also the potential for the environmental enhancement of the corridor and taking account of the need to conserve areas of historical and environmental sensitivity.

  Planning and Development
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the European Commissioner for environmental matters to discuss planning and development matters.

  Mr. Yeo
  I discuss a wide range of issues, including planning and development matters whenever I meet the Commissioner. Following our meeting on 21 January, no further meeting has yet been arranged.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the estimated savings made by local authorities as a result of compulsory competitive tendering; and what further savings could be made through its extension.

  Mr. Key
  Research has shown average savings of 6 per cent. in the annual value of contracts for all services subject to competition under the Local Government Act 1988. Higher average savings, in the range of 10 to 15 per cent. of annual value, have been achieved in the case of refuse collection and building cleaning. The Government believe that the demonstrable gains in efficiency and value for money stimulated by the introduction of competition should be extended to a wider range of local services.

  SSAs
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the counties which have obtained a higher standard spending assessment settlement per unit of population in the current year than Warwickshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The following counties have a higher standard spending assessment expressed in pounds per adult than Warwickshire for 1991–92: Avon, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cleveland, Cornwall, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Durham, East Sussex, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Hereford and Worcester, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Isle of Wight, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, Suffolk and Wiltshire.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will now direct his officials to have talks with local government officers in Warwickshire about the county's financial situation;

  (2) what advice or assistance is available to county councils which represent to him that the results of the standard spending assessment formula are disadvantageous to them.

  Mr. Portillo
  When the provisional standard spending assessments were announced on 26 November, local authorities were invited to make representations up to 31 December. Ministers met delegations from local authorities up to 9 January.

  The final standard spending assessment formulae for 1992–93 have now been approved by the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear his intentions with regard to charge capping. It is now for

  191
  Warwickshire and all other authorities to determine their budgets for 1992–93. It would not be appropriate for the Department to become involved in budgeting decisions. Any authority designated for capping will have the opportunity to make representations if it decides to challenge the level of the cap proposed by the Secretary of State.

  Housing Revenue Accounts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table of all local authorities in England, grouped regionally, showing the estimated notional deficit or surplus on their housing revenue account for 1991–92, if expenditure on rent rebates and subsidy towards those costs were excluded from the calculation of housing revenue accounts subsidy for that year but rents, debt repayment and management and management expenditure remained the same.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have arranged for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Pipelines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the laying or construction of notifiable pipelines is granted permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning and General Development Order 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Public gas suppliers within the meaning of section 7 of the Gas Act 1986 have permitted development rights under part 17F of schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, including the laying underground of notifiable pipelines.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites if special scientific interest have been denotified in each year since 1981; what was the total hectarage involved in each year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information is not available in the form requested. Since 1981. the total area of land de-notified in England, primarily as the result of boundary amendments to existing SSSIs is 12,699·8 hectares involving 440 SSSIs.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest were visited under the site integrity monitoring programme for the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  In England, 1,597 SSSIs were visited in the period from 1 April to 31 December 1991. The aim is for all SSSIs to be covered by site integrity monitoring, with a visit to each site at least every three years.

  Urban Programme Support, Hackney
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projects in the London borough of Hackney which have received inner cities partnership or urban programme support in each year since 1987–88, showing in each case the level of support and the benefits obtained for local people.
  192
  Mr. Key
  The Department has approved more than 400 projects under the Hackney urban programme—formerly called Hackney inner-city partnership—since 1987–88. Individual projects started each year within the Hackney urban programme (UP) are listed in annual reports available from Hackney council. Further details on UP funded projects are also available from the council.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the per capita levels of revenue support for the 10 local authorities which benefit most(a) in 1990–91, (b) in 1991–92 and (c) in 1992–93.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is as follows:

  1990–91 revenue support grant per capita for the 10 local authorities which benefit most

  Local authority

  1990–91 revenue support grant (£/per capita)

  City of London

  9,153

  Tower Hamlets

  824

  Hackney

  804

  Lambeth

  708

  Westminster

  689

  Islington

  633

  Newham

  621

  Southwark

  579

  Isles of Scilly

  573

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  560

  1991–92 revenue support grant per capita for the 10 local authorities which benefit most

  Local authority

  1991–92 revenue support grant(£/per capita)

  City of London

  9,420

  Tower Hamlets

  968

  Hackney

  939

  Lambeth

  844

  Westminster

  781

  Islington

  755

  Newham

  736

  Southwark

  681

  Isles of Scilly

  608

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  636

  1992–93 revenue support grant per capita for the 10 local authorities which benefit most

  Local authority

  1992–93 revenue support grant (£/per capita)

  City of London

  10,771

  Tower Hamlets

  1,154

  Hackney

  1,127

  Lambeth

  1,014

  Westminster

  959

  Islington

  942

  Newham

  940

  Southwark

  841

  Isles of Scilly

  853

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  821

  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the per capita levels of housing revenue support for the 10 local authorities which benefit most(a) in 1990–91, (b) in 1991–92 and (c) in 1992–93.
  193
  Mr. Yeo
  The information requested on housing revenue account (HRA) subsidy paid to English local housing authorities is shown in the following tables.

  HRA subsidy claimed 1990–91

  HRA subsidy claimed per dwelling 1990–91

  Islington

  139,842,857

  3,546

  Lambeth

  123,663,328

  2,493

  Hackney

  118,239,274

  2,549

  Manchester

  116,383,231

  1,233

  Camden

  107,762,567

  3,143

  Birmingham

  101,344,460

  907

  Southwark

  100,665,746

  1,723

  Tower Hamlets

  97,382,040

  2,307

  Liverpool

  76,015,000

  1,264

  Haringey

  71,166,800

  3,008

  HRA subsidy claimed 1991–92

  HRA subsidy claimed per dwelling 1991–92

  Manchester

  139,755,197

  1,519

  Islington

  138,230,866

  3,553

  Lambeth

  136,532,184

  2,886

  Hackney

  117,054,424

  2,591

  Southwark

  112,149,017

  1,948

  Tower Hamlets

  108,001,909

  2,621

  Camden

  107,920,526

  3,299

  Birmingham

  107,433,312

  978

  Liverpool

  82,944,395

  1,424

  Sheffield

  77,842,210

  1,035

  £million

  Capital financing SSA

  Equivalent net revenue expenditure

  Difference

  Bath

  0·662

  5·664

  5·002

  Bristol

  3·245

  9·069

  5·824

  North Bedfordshire

  0·697

  -0·507

  -1·204

  Bracknell Forest

  0·455

  -2·006

  -2·461

  Newbury

  0·718

  2·001

  1·283

  Slough

  0·812

  -1·928

  -2·740

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0·783

  4·639

  3·856

  Milton Keynes

  2·082

  3·891

  1·809

  Wycombe

  0·828

  14·573

  13·745

  Huntingdonshire

  0·641

  5·317

  4·676

  Peterborough

  1·041

  2·224

  1·183

  Vale Royal

  0·598

  -1·047

  -1·645

  Warrington

  1·200

  2·860

  1·660

  Hartlepool

  1·342

  3·057

  1·715

  Langbaurgh-on-Tees

  1·522

  3·533

  2·011

  Middlesbrough

  2·555

  4·147

  1·592

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1·392

  2·505

  1·113

  Kerrier

  0·665

  1·896

  1·231

  Chesterfield

  0·617

  4·441

  3·824

  Derby

  1·849

  3·722

  1·873

  East Devon

  0·688

  -0·537

  -1·225

  Plymouth

  2·206

  3·869

  1·663

  Teignbridge

  0·660

  1·924

  1·264

  Bournemouth

  1·578

  10·155

  8·577

  Christchurch

  0·456

  -0·737

  -1·193

  West Dorset

  0·886

  -1·108

  -1·994

  Derwentside

  0·702

  1·937

  1·235

  Wear Valley

  0·459

  2·815

  2·356

  Brighton

  1·375

  3·838

  2·463

  Hastings

  1·404

  2·926

  1·522

  Basildon

  1·007

  6·971

  5·964

  Braintree

  0·562

  2·144

  1·582

  Brentwood

  0·409

  2·979

  2·570

  Chelmsford

  0·894

  3·911

  3·017

  Colchester

  1087

  -0·192

  -1·279

  194

  Estimated subsidy claim for 1992–93

  Estimated subsidy claim per dwelling for 1992–93

  Lambeth

  133,037,277

  2,797

  Islington

  130,173,124

  3,336

  Manchester

  129,492,486

  1,414

  Hackney

  120,192,731

  2,728

  Southwark

  110,043,144

  1,954

  Birmingham

  107,543,367

  996

  Camden

  103,147,677

  3,124

  Tower Hamlets

  100,361,349

  2,557

  Sheffield

  83,720,944

  1,153

  Liverpool

  83,589,876

  1,464

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will state the difference between the standard spending assessments relating to capital charges allotted to local authorities and the amount which they needed to disburse on such expenditure for the year 1991–92, where that difference exceeded £1 million, together with the name of the local authority and the excess amount so paid.

  Mr. Key
  [holding answer 17 February 1992]: The capital financing element of the 1991–92 SSAs totalled £2,950·7 million. The latest information available to my Department indicates that local authorities have budgeted to spend £2,973·3 million on capital financing in 1991–92.

  The table shows the capital financing SSA element, the equivalent budgeted net revenue expenditure on capital financing, and the difference between these two amounts in 1991–92 for those local authorities where the difference exceeds £1 million.
  195

  Capital financing SSA

  Equivalent net revenue expenditure

  Difference

  Epping Forest

  0·829

  2·021

  1·192

  Harlow

  0·643

  2·325

  1·682

  Southend-on-Sea

  1·447

  3·055

  1·608

  Thurrock

  0·670

  5·033

  4·363

  Stroud

  0·505

  4·225

  3·720

  Portsmouth

  2·126

  -9·601

  -11·727

  Southampton

  1·814

  5·477

  3·663

  Winchester

  0·578

  2·354

  1·776

  Hereford

  0·276

  1·436

  1·160

  St. Albans

  0·714

  -0·375

  -1·089

  Three Rivers

  0·495

  -0·643

  -1·138

  Watford

  0·506

  -1·854

  -2·360

  Welwyn Hatfield

  0·799

  3196

  2·397

  Glanford

  1·041

  2·286

  1·245

  Great Grimsby

  0·627

  1·650

  1·023

  Kingston upon Hull

  4·230

  8·561

  4·331

  East Yorkshire

  0·427

  1·593

  1·166

  South Wight

  0·767

  -0·933

  -1·700

  Ashford

  0·479

  2·655

  2·176

  Canterbury

  1·336

  3·224

  1·888

  Maidstone

  0·804

  3·229

  2·425

  Rochester upon Medway

  1·061

  3·064

  2·003

  Sevenoaks

  0·530

  -0·716

  -1·246

  Swale

  0·753

  3·406

  2·653

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  0·595

  3·554

  2·959

  Blackburn

  2·396

  3·458

  1·062

  Pendle

  0·629

  1·726

  1·097

  Preston

  1·946

  4·754

  2·808

  Charnwood

  0·745

  2·378

  1·633

  Leicester

  4·281

  9·229

  4·948

  Melton

  0·182

  1·635

  1·453

  East Lindsey

  0·643

  2·413

  1·770

  Breckland

  0·534

  1·671

  1·137

  Great Yarmouth

  0·752

  2·001

  1·249

  Norwich

  1·055

  3·273

  2·218

  South Norfolk

  0·538

  -0·629

  -1·167

  Daventry

  0·207

  2·369

  2·162

  South Northamptonshire

  0·350

  -1·349

  -1·699

  Alnwick

  0·325

  1·833

  1·508

  Wansbeck

  0·597

  2·523

  1·926

  Harrogate

  0·802

  3·215

  2·413

  York

  0·606

  4·053

  3·447

  Ashfield

  0·576

  2·577

  2·001

  Gedling

  0·737

  1·789

  1·052

  Mansfield

  0·725

  2·503

  1·778

  Newark and Sherwood

  0·765

  3·611

  2·846

  Oxford

  0·923

  3·613

  2·690

  South Oxfordshire

  0·746

  -0·804

  -1·550

  The Wrekin

  0·930

  2·595

  1·665

  Cannock Chase

  0·530

  1·894

  1·364

  Stafford

  0·666

  2·767

  2·101

  Stoke·on·Trent

  2·166

  11·217

  9·051

  Forest Heath

  0·288

  1·779

  1·491

  Ispwich

  0·892

  2·687

  1·795

  Mid Suffolk

  0·590

  1·731

  1·141

  St. Edmundsbury

  0·430

  -1·001

  -1·431

  Suffolk Coastal

  1·093

  -1·258

  -2·351

  Waveney

  1·067

  2·122

  1·055

  Elmbridge

  0·581

  3·551

  2·970

  Reigate and Banstead

  0·714

  -2·903

  -3·617

  Woking

  1·025

  10·740

  9·715

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  0·634

  1·725

  1·091

  Adur

  0·343

  1·382

  1·039

  Crawley

  0·471

  -0·660

  -1·131

  Thamesdown

  0·859

  10·655

  9·796

  West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  2·676

  4·171

  1·495

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  9·904

  7·431

  -2·473

  Merseyside Police Authority

  2·037

  4·353

  2·316

  Northumbria Police Authority

  1·719

  4·071

  2·352

  West Midlands Police Authority

  3·524

  5·403

  1·879

  Bolton

  16·615

  13·095

  ·3·520

  Bury

  9·607

  7·782

  -1·825

  Manchester

  42·724

  75·611

  32·888

  Oldham

  19·536

  17·586

  -1·950

  196 197

  Capital financing SSA

  Equivalent net revenue expenditure

  Difference

  Stockport

  16·008

  17·973

  1·965

  Tameside

  12·615

  13·922

  1·307

  Trafford

  15·349

  14·342

  -1·007

  Knowsley

  12·494

  9·846

  -2·648

  St. Helens

  17·123

  15·208

  -1·914

  Sefton

  18·438

  16·502

  -1·936

  Wirral

  22·341

  26·153

  3·812

  Barnsley

  12·735

  17·167

  4·433

  Doncaster

  15·466

  11·728

  -3·739

  Rotherham

  13·959

  16·313

  2·354

  Sheffield

  32·735

  41·411

  8·676

  Gateshead

  19·877

  15·810

  -4·066

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  25·938

  32·542

  6·605

  North Tyneside

  15·495

  13·820

  -1·675

  South Tyneside

  16·415

  15·200

  -1·215

  Sunderland

  25·182

  21·689

  -3·493

  Birmingham

  71·763

  113·620

  41·857

  Coventry

  21·379

  40·177

  18·798

  Dudley

  20·101

  21·865

  1·764

  Sandwell

  18·171

  20·454

  2·283

  Solihull

  9·610

  6·973

  -2·637

  Walsall

  18·409

  25·934

  7·524

  Wolverhampton

  19·009

  22·525

  3·515

  Bradford

  38·682

  32·836

  -5·846

  Calderdale

  10·910

  11·958

  1·049

  Leeds

  43·218

  57·969

  14·751

  Wakefield

  19·577

  10·542

  -9·035

  City of London

  7·830

  34·187

  26·357

  Camden

  16·359

  27·100

  10·741

  Greenwich

  15·130

  12·613

  -2·518

  Hackney

  20·546

  25·132

  4·587

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  15·629

  19·803

  4·174

  Islington

  16·970

  29·109

  12·139

  Kensington and Chelsea

  13·704

  9·049

  -4·655

  Lambeth

  22·365

  27·102

  4·736

  Lewisham

  18·535

  9·645

  -8·890

  Southwark

  19·799

  13·142

  -6·657

  Tower Hamlets

  21·624

  14·954

  -6·670

  Westminster

  20·610

  7·252

  -13·357

  Barking and Dagenham

  7·031

  10·626

  3·595

  Barnet

  13·980

  7·549

  -6·431

  Bexley

  15·095

  12·508

  -2·588

  Brent

  20·414

  25·137

  4·723

  Bromley

  16·370

  24·579

  8·209

  Croydon

  18·222

  2·944

  -15·278

  Ealing

  19·662

  16·636

  -3·027

  Enfield

  19·757

  22·897

  3·141

  Haringey

  18·095

  29·877

  11·782

  Harrow

  16·484

  11·588

  -4·896

  Havering

  12·520

  8·121

  -4·399

  Hillingdon

  19·779

  14·824

  -4·955

  Hounslow

  12·888

  14·833

  1·945

  Kingston upon Thames

  10·446

  4·808

  -5·638

  Merton

  12·619

  15·451

  2·833

  Newham

  23·586

  26·883

  3·297

  Redbridge

  13·107

  8·551

  -4·556

  Richmond upon Thames

  8·501

  5·769

  -2·732

  Sutton

  10·796

  8·537

  -2·258

  Waltham Forest

  17·567

  13·658

  -3·909

  Avon

  33·924

  23·976

  -9·948

  Bedfordshire

  21·280

  26·002

  4·722

  Berkshire

  34·934

  42·389

  7·455

  Cambridgeshire

  31·314

  14·716

  -16·598

  Cheshire

  41·132

  42·558

  1·426

  Cleveland

  29·774

  34·493

  4·719

  Cornwall

  26·796

  17·680

  -9116

  Cumbria

  24·068

  20·300

  -3·768

  Derbyshire

  48·043

  31·389

  -16·654

  Devon

  44·846

  34·906

  -9·940

  Dorset

  27·321

  3·291

  -24·030

  Durham

  26·357

  21·714

  -4·643

  East Sussex

  35·141

  28·812

  -6·329

  Essex

  72·777

  52·976

  -19·801

  Gloucestershire

  25·277

  19·714

  -5·563

  198 199

  Capital financing SSA

  Equivalent net revenue expenditure

  Difference

  Hampshire

  70·469

  48·033

  -22·436

  Hereford and Worcester

  26·628

  18·375

  -8·253

  Hertfordshire

  38·813

  19·762

  -19·051

  Humberside

  44·489

  36·293

  -8·196

  Kent

  80·388

  37·764

  -42·624

  Lancashire

  74·180

  80·534

  6·354

  Leicestershire

  44·072

  32·800

  -11·272

  Lincolnshire

  26·760

  29·963

  3·203

  Norfolk

  30·299

  20·136

  -10·163

  Northamptonshire

  31·375

  23·460

  -7·915

  Northumberland

  14·538

  7·790

  -6·748

  North Yorkshire

  31·015

  20·297

  -10·718

  Nottinghamshire

  38·133

  46·284

  8·151

  Oxfordshire

  18·875

  16·056

  -2·819

  Shropshire

  22·566

  16·809

  -5·757

  Somerset

  22·065

  19·731

  -2·334

  Staffordshire

  47·723

  38·649

  -9·074

  Surrey

  38·025

  53·235

  15·210

  Warwickshire

  16·392

  14·551

  -1·841

  West Sussex

  27·975

  16·436

  -11·539

  Wiltshire

  25·388

  15·057

  -10·331

  NB—nditure figures for the metropolitan districts include expenditure by the metropolitan transport authorities and the metropolitan waste authorities. The expenditure figures for the London boroughs include expenditure on waste regulation and disposal.

  Council House Sales
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the total capital receipts available to local authorities from the sale of council houses in the last 12 months; and what was the total for the immediately preceding 12-month period.

  Sir George Young
  Receipts from the sale of council dwellings constitute the large majority of housing capital receipts. Our current estimate of usable housing capital receipts available to authorities from sales and disposals in 1991–92 is about £450 million (projected from the half-year data available). The value of 1990–91 usable housing capital receipts, reported by authorities, is £625 million. In addition to spending from usable receipts, councils may also finance expenditure from new borrowing, authorised by credit approvals, and by contributions from revenue accounts, and many also have unspent usable receipts from previous years.

  Service Pensioners
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) whether he gives guidance on local authorities' employment policies, to seek to prevent. the councils as employers from discriminating against prospective employees on the ground that they are in receipt of a pension as a result of having served in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will introduce proposals for legislation making it illegal for local authorities to discriminate against job applicants because they are in receipt of a pension as a result of having served in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will list all those local authorities who have an official policy of discriminating against job applicants on the ground that they are in receipt of a pension from the armed forces.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities are responsible for their own recruitment policies. Like other employers, they are free to employ whom they wish, subject to the provisions of general employment law.
  200
  My Department holds no records of local authorities which discriminate against job applicants receiving pensions from the armed forces. Any legislation on this issue would be a matter for the Department of Employment. There are no plans to introduce legislation or provide guidance in this area.

  Section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires that, subject to other employment law, all appointments to local authority posts are made on merit. Within the terms of the selection criteria applied by local authorities, a successful applicant must be capable of meeting the requirements of the post applied for.

  Assured Tenancies
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of short assured tenancies for the year 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  The numbers of assured shorthold tenancies can only be estimated from survey evidence. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys 1990 private renters survey estimated that there was a total of 136,000 assured shorthold tenancies in mid-1990. This is the most recent figure available.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of empty properties in the private sector.

  Mr. Yeo
  Estimates of empty dwellings reported by English local authorities in their annual housing investment programme returns for April 1991 amounted to some 640,000 dwellings, or 4.2 per cent. of the private housing stock.

  Large Markets
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to exclude large commercial markets from permitted development as defined in schedule 2, part 4 of the Town and Country Planning: General Development Order 1988, S.I. 1913.
  201
  Mr. Yeo
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to make such an exclusion.

  Lead Water Pipes
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will assist households on low incomes with the costs of replacing lead water supply pipes in dwellings.

  Mr. Yeo
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales and I have today written to local authority associations, the water industry, and other organisations, seeking their views on proposals to extend minor works assistance, under the provisions of part VIII of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. We propose that local authorities be given wider scope in providing discretionary assistance to meet the cost of replacing lead water supply pipes to all owner occupiers or tenants on income-related benefits.

  This will complement the action water companies are taking to reduce plumbosolvency in water supplies and replace their section of lead service pipes. Where lead levels in water nevertheless remain high because of lead plumbing in houses or flats, the local authority will be able to help all those least able to meet the costs of these works, especially families with young children. This is intended to encourage modernisation of homes and protect public health while at the same time targeting resources where they are most needed.

  A copy of the consultation paper has been deposited in the Library.

  African Elephant
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of proposals to move the African elephant from appendix I to the convention on international trade in endangered species to appendix II; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have held a number of meetings with a wide variety of elephant interest groups and independent experts.

  The Government have repeatedly stated their full and unflinching commitment to maintaining the current ban on trade in elephant products as long as it is necessary to ensure the survival and recovery of African elephant populations. Moreover, there is no question of our agreeing to any changes which would not meet the stringent conditions specified when the ban was agreed in 1989.

  We are not convinced that the time is right for a resumption in the trade in elephant products. We therefore intend to press strongly at the forthcoming conference of the parties to CITES in Kyoto for the retention of African elephants in appendix I to the convention.

  Pollution Victims
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will name the parties to whom his Department has sent, and with whom his Department has consulted on the OECD produced recommendations on compensation for victims of accidental pollution.
  202
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer of 14 February 1992]: The OECD council has not yet adopted the draft recommendation on compensation of victims of accidental pollution. Officials from the Department of the Environment, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Health and Safety Executive have contributed to the OECD's work and in doing so have maintained contact with representatives of British and European insurers.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to offer employees of the Property Services Agency in Northern Ireland redundancy in anticipation of the privatisation of the Property Services Agency; whether the Property Services Agency in Northern Ireland will remain a separate entity after privatisation: and what steps he is taking to enable employees to make a considered decision upon the option of redundancy prior to the availability of details of the privatisation proposals.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: PSAs work in Northern Ireland is handled by the PSA building management (BM) business. Ministers will review BM's progress towards privatisation later this year. It is therefore premature to speculate on the form which privatisation might take, and whether Northern Ireland should remain a separate entity.

  In order to reduce manpower levels and thereby enable the PSAs businesses to compete more effectively, a voluntary early retirement/severance (VER) scheme, open to all non-industrial staff was launched throughout PSAs in late 1990. The benefits paid to those accepted for VER are the same as those which would be provided on compulsory redundancy. Officers who are uncertain whether to apply can request an estimate of their financial entitlements before making up their minds. Decisions on whether to offer VER, are taken in the light of business operational needs.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings or other discussions his officials have had with local government officers in Warwickshire about the county's standard spending assessment in 1991 and 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Warwickshire have had the opportunity —in common with all other authorities—to make written representations on our settlement proposals and to request meetings with Ministers. Officials have not met officers from Warwickshire to discuss the authority's SSA although regular meetings are held with the local authority associations to discuss general SSA issues. Warwickshire did, however, meet me and officials in the context of community charge limitation for 1991–92 and my hon. Friends representing Warwickshire constituencies have frequently taken the opportunity to discuss the methodology underlying standard spending assessments with Ministers in this Department.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what percentage of the work force of the House are disabled.

  Mr. Beith
  The number of registered disabled persons employed by the Commission represents 0.6 per cent. of the total House of Commons staff. That figure does not include registered disabled persons employed by Members or organisations in the House for which the Commission does not at present have responsibility.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Clerk's and Library Departments
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission how many staff in the Clerk's Department and in the Library Department are at grade 5 or above.

  Mr. Beith
  The relevant figures are 34 and five respectively.

DEFENCE

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been given to Gibraltar, in each of the last three years, to train workers made redundant by the run down of the dockyards; whether training and re-training places are open to all those previously employed in the dockyards, regardless of nationality; what representations he has received on these matters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The Gibraltar dockyard ceased to operate under MOD management on 31 December 1984. With effect from 1 January 1985 the dockyard passed to the Government of Gibraltar and was operated on its behalf by Gibraltar Shiprepair Ltd. The provision of assistance and training for staff made redundant since the transfer is not, in consequence, a matter for the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the WE177s withdrawn from(a) Royal Navy and (b) RAF service will be dismantled or put into storage.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in the House on 14 October,Official Report, column 58, that we would be making a substantial reduction in the numbers of free-fall WE177 bombs in the coming years and that in normal circumstances WEI 77s will not be deployed at sea. All WE177s withdrawn from service will be dismantled.

  Scottish Battalions
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the permanent establishment of the battalion to be formed by the amalgamation of the 4 (Volunteer) Parachute battalion and the 15 (Volunteer) Parachute 204
  battalion; what will be the minimum size of each of the five detachments of the Scottish company within the amalgamated battalion; and what level of funding and logistical support will be provided to each of the five Scottish detachments.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The permanent establishment will be 490, conforming to the new standard being adopted by all 36 Territorial Army infantry battalions. Rifle companies of the new battalion will have the same formal establishment as those of the remainder of the Territorial Army infantry, increased by an allowance for recruits and where support elements of the battalion are allocated to the company. The Scottish Company of the new battalion will be able to overbear. The size of each detachment will reflect the ability of the company and its detachments to recruit and retain personnel.

  In line with the remainder of the Territorial Army, the Scottish Company of 4 para will be properly supported and funded to carry out the roles requested of it. It is envisaged that detachments will be based on shared Territorial Army centres at their current locations, enabling them to draw upon shared facilities and administrative support.

HEALTH

  Bed Availability
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to take on bed availability following the recent report by the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We expect NHS managers to review local services in the light of the Audit Commission's report on the use of medical beds in acute hospitals and the further detailed work the Audit Commission will carry out in all health authorities and NHS trusts over the next 12 months.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collect statistics on the occasions when no beds are available, other than through the accident and emergency units, in each hospital and district health authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no plans to do so. It would not be appropriate to collect this information centrally. We expect managers at local level to monitor bed use and availability.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he proposes to ensure fair and open competition in the NHS and the NHS trusts for potential female applicants for senior management posts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS is committed to equal opportunities in employment. The Department launched an initiative in June 1991 to put women's employment issues on the main NHS managerial agenda. In order to take full advantage of the potential of women in the NHS, the NHS management executive has signed up as a campaign member of Opportunity 2000. Among the
  205
  key goals set is the need to ensure that more women are appointed at the most senior levels as firm evidence of the commitment to making best use of all staff. Detailed guidance on how these goals may be achieved, and the results monitored, is to be issued in due course.

  Toxocara Canis
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has carried out into which domestic and wild animals in the United Kingdom act as hosts for toxocara canis.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has carried out no such research.

  Lead Poisoning
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department is conducting into the dangers of lead poisoning, especially for children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department is not at present carrying out any such studies. There has been very extensive research into the dangers of lead poisoning, with particular attention to neuropsychological effects in children. Studies of the latter, undertaken in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, were reviewed in 1988 by an advisory group of the Medical Research Council, the main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research in the United Kingdom. The advisory group concluded that"any effects of lead at the exposure levels seen in the United Kingdom are very small and cannot be detected with any certainty …but the evidence for an association between body lead burden and IQ is now stronger …In view of these conclusions it would be prudent to continue to reduce the environmental lead to which children are exposed."

  Since 1974 it has been the policy of successive Governments to contain and reduce exposure to lead wherever practicable, particularly in those circumstances where people are most exposed. Successful measures have been taken to reduce lead exposure through petrol, water, air, food, industrial emissions, paint, cosmetics, ceramic glazes and toys, and monitoring programmes have shown a continuing fall in blood lead levels in children and adults.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to Government action to protect British people from the likely effects of the depletion of the ozone layer over the Arctic and northern latitudes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on 20 December 1991 at columns 353–54. The Department proposes to seek advice from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) on what further action may be appropriate.

  Whitley Council Appeals Machinery
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement outlining the legal provisions relating to the abolition of the General Whitley Council appeals machinery as set out in section 32 of the General Whitley Council;
  206
  (2) if he will explain the reasons for the abolition of the General Whitley Council appeals machinery; and what consultations he has had with Whitley Council representatives before deciding to do so;

  (3) if he will set out the machinery he proposes to put in place of the provisions now revoked as a result of his abolition of section 32 of the General Whitley Council.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The new conditions provide for employing authorities to introduce more straightforward local procedures after consultation with staff and local staff representatives.

  Section 32 of the General Whitley Council provisions was seen increasingly as a cumbersome and ineffective way of handling differences of opinion between employing authorities and individual members of staff. Individual grievances which were not resolved at employing authority level were referred to a second level of appeal and, if again unresolved, to a third national level of appeal. There was no provision which required such appeals—which could be taken forward only by a professional organisation or trade union representing an aggrieved employee—to be finally resolved, and so many cases, some of which took a year or more to go through the system, were never resolved. This system did little to foster good industrial relations locally.

  The management side of the General Whitley Council were in negotiations with the staff side for about four years to change the procedures until August 1991 when the talks broke down.

  In the light of lack of progress the existing agreement was revoked and replaced by new conditions, using powers in paragraph 10 of schedule 5 of the National Health Services Act 1977 and regulations 3 and 4 of the National Health Service (Remuneration and Conditions of Service) Regulations 1991.

  The new machinery is as follows:

  Procedure for settling differences about conditions of service

  1 The procedures set out below apply where an officer is aggrieved in relation to any matter affecting his conditions of service, but do not apply to settling differences relating to:—

  (a) dismissal or disciplinary matters,

  (b) disputes appropriate to resolution in accordance with section 33 of the General Whitley Council Handbook,

  (c) organisational change, or

  (d) matters for which it has been agreed that specific Whitley Council procedures will apply.

  2. Subject to paragraph 1 above, an officer to whom this procedure applies may seek redress of his grievance in accordance with procedures determined by the employing authority. Those procedures shall be determined by the employing authority following consultation with staff and local staff representatives. The procedures shall be designed to provide for the speedy resolution of the grievance of an individual officer or servant as close as possible to its source. In establishing the procedures, regard should be had to good industrial relations practice such as that recommended by ACAS.

  3. The procedures determined by employing authorities shall provide for the reference of grievances to a person or body other than the employing authority where the parties agree, in relation to a specific grievance, that the reference is appropriate.

  4. Where the grievance relates to the application of a national agreement reached through the National Whitley Council, either party may seek clarification as to the intended interpretation of the agreement from the joint secretaries of the National Whitley Council if those secretaries agree to provide that clarification.

  Marriages
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to introduce legislation to require those responsible for conducting marriage ceremonies to require documentary evidence of the age, identity and marital status of those who are marrying; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government, in their White Paper "Registration: proposals for change"—Cm. 939—said that it will legislate to give to registrars and to the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales powers to call for documentary evidence of the age, identity and marital status of those who are marrying. The legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what restrictions exist on a registrar of civil marriages in England and Wales informing the appropriate authorities that an individual seeking to marry has overstayed his or her permitted visit to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Superintendent registrars are statutory officers exercising functions under the Marriage and Registration Acts under the direction of the Registrar General. They are not agents of the immigration service and the fact that an individual has overstayed his or her permitted visit to the United Kingdom does not constitute a lawful impediment to that person marrying in this country. However, if a superintendent registrar has good reason to suspect that the proposed marriage of a person from abroad has been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls he or she is instructed to report the facts to the Registrar General. If the Registrar General is satisfied that the marriage is purely one of convenience, then the facts will be passed on to the Home Office.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for monitoring implementation of the Children Act 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today issued a paper on the Department of Health's strategy for monitoring implementation of the Children Act. Copies of the paper have also been placed in the Library.

  The monitoring strategy relies in the main on
  —an enhanced collection of management information returns covering the key provisions of the Children Act.
  —social services inspectorate's programme of a major survey of local authorities' progress towards implementation of the Act coupled with small scale inspections and development work.
  research.

  Information drawn from these sources will form the basis of my report to Parliament at the end of 1992 on the first year of the Children Act in operation.

  Cervical Smears
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Hearth if he will list each district health authority which are(a) reaching the one month target, (b) not reaching the one month target for cervical smear tests and (c) the number of weeks taken to process cervical smear tests in districts which are not meeting the target (i) currently, (ii) last year and (iii) five years ago.
  208
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 10 February 1992]: As at December 1991, the latest available date, the following district health authorities were not reaching the one month target for cervical smear tests:

  District

  Length of backlog weeks

  Bradford

  5

  Huntingdon

  5

  Parkside

  5

  Sheffield

  5

  South Bedfordshire

  5

  Northampton

  7

  Camberwell

  11

  Action is being taken by all the health authorities concerned to bring the remaining backlogs within the one month target.

  All other district health authorities were reaching the one month target at December 1991.

  In March 1991, the following district health authorities were not reaching the one month target for cervical smear tests:

  District

  Length of backlog (weeks)

  Barnet

  9

  Basildon and Thurrock

  6·5

  Bath

  12

  Brighton

  8

  Bromley

  8

  Cambridge

  7

  Croydon

  5

  Enfield

  12

  Hampstead

  6

  Haringey

  5

  Huntingdon

  5

  Merton and Sutton

  5

  North East Essex

  6·5

  Nottingham

  5

  Parkside

  9

  Redbridge

  12

  Scunthorpe

  7

  Shropshire

  23

  South Derbyshire

  5

  Southend

  12

  South Tees

  6·5

  Stockport1

  13

  Sunderland

  6

  Tameside1

  7

  Tunbridge

  6

  Waltham Forest

  5

  1 July 1991.

  All other districts were reaching the one month target at March 1991.

  Information on the processing of cervical smear tests is not available for five years ago. The one month target was introduced in 1988, following the setting up of the NHS cervical screening programme.

  For information relating to July 1991 I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 16 July 1991 at column 145.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  United Nations Trade Conference
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether his Department was represented at the Eighth United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Cartagena. Colombia.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  As Minister for Trade, I attended the opening ceremony on 8 February 1992 and made a statement on 10 February. Officials from my Department will be in attendance throughout the conference.

  Hong Kong (Ministerial Visits)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1988, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry arrived in Hong Kong in the morning of 27 September 1988 and left in the afternoon of 29 September. His programme included a breakfast with Conservatives Abroad.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, on his visits to Hong Kong in(a) June 1988 and (b) April 1989, the then Secretary of State took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: Lord Young arrived in Hong Kong in the afternoon of 19 June 1988 and left in the evening of 22 June. His programme included early evening drinks with Conservatives Abroad.

  Lord Young returned to Hong Kong in the early evening of 16 April 1989 and left the same evening. This programme did not include any political engagements.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, on his visit to Hong Kong in September 1990, the Minister for Trade took part in party political activities in addition to official duties.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 13 February 1992]: The Minister for Trade arrived in Hong Kong in the afternoon of 22 September 1990 and he left in the afternoon of Wednesday 26 September. His programme did not include any political activities.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reduction he expects in production or employment in 1992–93 in those industries which are heavy users of energy as a result of the recent and proposed increases in electricity prices; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that such developments are minimised.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: The Government are aware of the concerns of large users about electricity prices, and have asked them for more detailed information. But they cannot predict the effects of changes in electricity prices on production or employment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern ireland (1) how many applications have been made under section 57 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 for the exercise of the powers conferred by schedule 5 to that Act; and how many authorisations have been granted;

  (2) how many notices have been issued under paragraph 2 of schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 requiring (a) the attendance of persons or (b) the production of documents;

  (3) how many applications have been made for the issue of warrants under paragraph 3 of schedule 5 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My right hon. Friend proposes to publish on an annual basis statistics relating to the use made of these provisions.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list all the highways(a) closed or (b) diverted by orders made under section 25 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 or the equivalent provision in earlier Acts giving in each case the date of the order.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information relating to the period prior to 16 May 1991 is not available in the format requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Since 16 May 1991, the closure of the following roads has been directed by order of the Secretary of State.

  Under section 19A(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987

  1. The Movarran Road between Ordnance Survey grid references 18107304 and 18027285, in the townland of Movarran, County Fermanagh—directed by order dated 29 May 1991.

  2. The border crossing point between Ordnance Survey grid references 15667188 and 15727180, in the townland of Rushindoo, to the north of Kesh, County Fermanagh—directed by order dated 5 June 1991.

  3. The border crossing point between Ordnance Survey grid references 44002264 and 44142287, in the townland of Clonkee, to the south-east of Newtownbutler, County Fermanagh—directed by order dated 21 June 1991.

  Under section 25 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991

  1./2. The Killymeal Road, near its junction with Viewfort, Dungannon, County Tyrone and Orpheus Road, near its junction with Killymeal Road, Dungannon, County Tyrone—directed by order dated 24 September 1991.

  3. The Antrim Road at Ordnance Survey grid reference 14858187, near Aldergrove International Airport, County Antrim—directed by order dated 29 September 1991.

  The Secretary of State has not directed the diversion of any road in this period.

  GP Fund Holding
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement detailing communications to general medical practitioners encouraging fund-holding practices outlining what incentives exist and
  211
  detailing the extent and timing of contact on the matter with health and social services boards with whom the general medical practitioners have their contracts.

  Mr. Hanky
  A detailed programme setting out how the GP fund-holding scheme will work in Northern Ireland and inviting expressions of interest was sent to all general practitioners on 16 December 1991. Expressions of interest will be accepted up to the beginning of March 1992 after which there will be a process of assessment in which health and social services boards will be closely involved.

  Ballot Papers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to monitor the number of persons refused a ballot paper at the forthcoming general election because they are not in possession of the correct identification document.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Government have no plans to undertake such an exercise. The requirement for voters to produce a specified document at elections in Northern Ireland is well known and well advertised. Every elector in Northern Ireland either has or is in a position to obtain at least one suitable document free of charge.

  Year

  Guarantee section2

  Guidance section

  Other CAP expenditure2

  Total expenditure on the CAP

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  mecu

  £ million

  1985

  19,728

  11,601

  690

  406

  52

  31

  20,470

  12,037

  1986

  22,119

  14,330

  727

  471

  47

  30

  22,893

  14,831

  1987

  22,950

  16,508

  863

  621

  32

  23

  23,845

  17,152

  1988

  27,640

  18,749

  1,142

  775

  58

  39

  28,840

  19,564

  1989

  25,849

  16,925

  1,349

  883

  49

  32

  27,247

  17,840

  1990

  26,430

  18,764

  1,825

  1,296

  77

  55

  28,332

  20,114

  31991

  32,359

  22,550

  2,011

  1,401

  143

  100

  34,734

  24,205

  1992

  36,849

  25,679

  2,644

  1,843

  364

  254

  39,857

  27,775

  1 Figures for 1992 include 1.000 mecu (£697 million) for the monetary reserve.

  2 Other agricultural expenditure comprises mainly 50 per cent. of 5-year set-aside scheme, income aids (since 1990) and agricultural inspections.

  3 1991 figures consist of provisional outturn (guarantee section and part of other CAP expenditure) and budget provisions (the rest).

  Sources: 1985–1990: Budget outturn figures.

  1991: Budget plus provisional outturn.

  1992: Budget.

  Hungarian Meat Fraud
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the problems encountered in the Hungarian meat fraud, referred to in his Ministry's expenditure plans 1992–93 to 1994–95.

  Mr. Gummer
  This matter is already under consideration by the courts and further investigations are continuing. In the circumstances, I am unable to comment.

WALES

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the net farm income figures for Wales for each year since 1985–86 to 1989–90, inclusive, for(a) upland farms and (b) lowland farms that are involved in cattle and sheep mixed farming; and if he will make a statement.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy regarding the future of the Potato Marketing Board and the potato marketing scheme.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government's policy is to encourage the Potato Marketing Board to respond to the needs of the market and to keep the potato marketing scheme under review in the light of developments in the European Community and elsewhere.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will update his answer of 17 June 1991,Official Report, column 20, giving revised figures for the common agricultural policy budget in 1991 and 1992, and forecasts for 1993; if he will state whether forecasts for 1993 incorporate changes in expenditure as a result of the current EC Commission proposals for CAP reforms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The table gives the information requested for the years up to 1992. A forecast for 1993 is not yet available as it would depend on decisions that have yet to be taken.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Net farm income figures for lowland livestock farms have not been published separately since 1984–85. The extension of the less-favoured areas (LFAs) in that year led to a change in classification of a substantial number of lowland livestock farms to LFA livestock farms, and the resulting lowland livestock sample figures became statistically unreliable. Figures for hill and upland cattle and sheep farms for the period 1985–86 to 1989–90 are:

  Net farm income

  £'000

  1985–86

  9·0

  1986–87

  9·3

  1987–88

  12·5

  1988–89

  16·4

  1989–90

  10·9

  Usk Barrage
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the(a) environmental, (b) agricultural and (c) groundwater impact of the proposed Usk barrage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have received a number of representations on the environmental impact of the proposed Usk barrage.

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the provision of chiropody services in Monmouth and in Gilwern, Gwent.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  The provision of chiropody services is the responsibility of the health authority. There has been a temporary withdrawal of service at Gilwern due to accommodation problems, but the problem has now been resolved and the health authority will resume the service shortly. Meanwhile, chiropody services are available at Brynmawr and Abergavenny.

  Metal Production
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of(a) United Kingdom iron, (b) crude steel and (c) tinplate is produced within Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1991, 35 per cent. of United Kingdom iron production, 35 per cent. of United Kingdom crude steel production, and 100 per cent. of United Kingdom tinplate production took place within Wales.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much steel is made per head in Wales; and what were the equivalent figures for 1976, 1981 and 1986.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In 1981, 176 tonnes of raw steel were produced per steel worker in Wales. The equivalent figures for 1986 and 1991 were 239 tonnes and 341 tonnes respectively. No figures are available for 1976.

  Fish Farm Appeals, Milford Haven
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now in a position to announce his decision on fish farm licence appeals in Milford Haven.

  Mr. David Hunt
  There is one appeal outstanding in this area. My officials wrote to the appellants over a year ago requesting information that is needed before I can determine the appeal. No information has yet been received, but my officials have recently written again, asking whether the appellants are able to provide the information or now wish to withdraw the appeal.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of United Kingdom electricity is generated in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 24 July 1991 at column 628.

  Grant Aid
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which grant in aid militates against the creation of a level playing field for commercial undertakings;

  (2) how many commercial undertakings, and at what cost, have been grant-aided in each of the past 10 years;

  (3) how many new jobs have been created in each of the past 10 years as a result of grant-aiding commercial undertakings;

  (4) what assessment he has made of the effect upon the relative competitiveness of self-financing companies trading in the same sector as companies in receipt of grant aid.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Information in the form requested is not available within my Department.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the planned expansion of environmentally sensitive areas in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  On 20 November 1991, I announced that, following consultations with the Countryside Council for Wales, I had asked my officials to undertake a detailed analysis of four locations in Wales that I am considering designating as environmentally sensitive areas in 1992–93. The four locations are Anglesey, the Clwydian range, Preseli and Radnor. It is my intention to designate at least two of those locations as ESAs in 1992–93, but final decisions cannot be taken until the more detailed work has been completed. I will announce my final selection in due course.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table indicating for each of Delyn, Dinefwr, Dwyfor, Islwyn, Neath and Llanelli district authorities in Wales(a) their position on the 1991 revised index of the Welsh deprivation table, (b) the total urban aid granted to each of the authorities over the past three years and (c) the urban aid per capita this represents in each instance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: The following table sets out details of urban programme allocations for each of the three years 1990–91 to 1992–93 for the district councils in Delyn, Dinefwr, Dwyfor, Islwyn, Neath and Llanelli. The total urban programme allocation per capita for each of the local authorities is also shown.

  Urban programme allocations to local authorities in Wales are now being targeted at strategy-based projects and projects within the most deprived wards. Nevertheless, traditional factors, such as quality of bids submitted by local authorities and competition for finite resources, remain important elements in determining which projects are approved.
  215

  Local Authority

  Position on deprivation table: revised

  UP allocations (£) (including supplementary allocations)

  Total £

  Population (thousands) (mid–1990 estimates)

  UP per capita(£)

  index 1991

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Delyn

  18

  621,713

  699,141

  312,258

  1,633,112

  66·8

  24·45

  Dinefwr

  20

  443,000

  687,731

  365,375

  1,496,106

  39·0

  38·36

  Dwyfor

  15

  65,000

  —

  150,000

  215,000

  27 1

  7·93

  Islwyn

  17

  1,004,350

  1,070,884

  1,456,686

  3,531,920

  68·6

  51·49

  Neath

  14

  516,324

  823,520

  554,317

  1,894,161

  64·9

  29·19

  Llanelli

  16

  495,254

  442,327

  489,327

  1,426,908

  75·6

  18·87

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average increase in community charge bills in 1992–93 compared with 1991–92 in Newport, West that is attributable to the change in community charge reduction scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 17 February 1992]: For the three years of the scheme the figures are:

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  Alltyryn

  0

  0

  0

  Bettws

  0

  7

  0

  Caerleon

  0

  0

  0

  Coedkernew

  0

  15

  0

  Gaer

  0

  0

  0

  Graig

  0

  0

  0

  Malpas

  0

  15

  0

  Marshfield

  0

  0

  0

  Michaelstone y Fedw

  0

  0

  0

  Pillgwenlly

  0

  34

  17

  Rogerstonc

  0

  0

  0

  Shaftesbury

  0

  0

  0

  Stow Hill

  0

  35

  18

  Tredegar Park

  0

  0

  0

  Wentloog

  1

  46

  29

  Cardiologists
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of cardiologists per million people in Wales at the last available date.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 17 February 1992]: At 30 September 1990; there were 4·6 (whole-time equivalent) consultants with a main specialty of cardiology in Wales, which equates to 1·6 per million population.

  There were also six consultants with a main speciality of general medicine who were recorded as having an interest in cardiology; ie, undertaking at least one session per week in cardiology.

  Health Authorities (NHS Expenditure)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was spent by the NHS Wales, per capita, in the area of(a) East Dyfed health authority and (b) Pembrokeshire health authority in 1991–92.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: Information is not available on the geographical distribution of expenditure by the Dyfed family health services authority as between the areas served by the East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire health authorities. It is therefore not possible to provide figures on overall NHS expenditure per capita in East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire.

  Indeed, some of the expenditure on hospital and community services within these districts will in fact relate
  216
  to cross-boundary flows of patients from other parts of the country. Similarly, there are cross-boundary flows of patients from East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire to other districts, and that needs to be taken into account if valid comparisons of per capita expenditure are to be made as between the two authorities.

  The following information therefore relates to the prospective per capita revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services by these authorities in 1991–92 on behalf of their resident populations, irrespective of where those services are provided.

  £

  East Dyfed

  428

  Pembrokeshire

  400

  The figures are inclusive of capital charges based upon the recent revised estimates of their incidence across authorities. Capital expenditure is excluded, since that cannot be apportioned on a resident population basis.

  As indicated in my right hon. Friend's announcement of allocations for 1992–93 on 4 February 1992, at column 125–28, under the new resident population funding arrangements both authorities are set to benefit from higher than average rates of revenue growth over the next seven years as they progress towards their weighted capitation formula shares. Indeed, that process has already begun with the allocation of discretionary revenue cash increases of 7·6 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively to the East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire health authorities in 1992–93.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money will be spent, per capita, by the NHS Wales in the area of Pembrokeshire health authority in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: Information is not available on the anticipated geographical distribution of expenditure by Dyfed family health services authority in 1992–93, as between the areas served by the East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire health authorities. It is therefore not possible to provide figures on overall NHS expenditure per capita in East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire.

  Indeed, some of the expenditure on hospital and community services within these districts will in fact relate to cross-boundary flows of patients from other parts of the country. Similarly there are cross-boundary flows of patients from East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire to other districts, and that needs to be taken into account if valid comparisons of per capita provision are to be made as between the two authorities.

  On the basis of the allocations to district health authorities in 1992–93 that my right hon. Friend announced on 4 February at column 125–28, the

  217
  anticipated revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services for the population resident within the boundaries of Pembrokeshire health authority in the next financial year—irrespective of where those services are provided—will be of the order of £422 per capita.

  It should, however, be noted that that figure is based on the discretionary revenue funds already allocated to Pembrokeshire health authority together with an estimate of its prospective share of the additional revenue that will be made available to meet the capital financing needs of the Pembrokeshire health trust. It does not take into account expenditure on any centrally funded developments, details of which are still to be announced. Nor does it take account of the supplementary funding that is to be provided in respect of the recently announced pay increases for doctors, nurses and professions allied to medicine.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money will be spent, per capita, by the NHS Wales in the area of East Dyfed health authority in 1992–93.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  [holding answer 18 February 1992]: Information is not available on the anticipated geographical distribution of expenditure by the Dyfed family health services authority in 1992–93 as between the areas served by the East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire health authorities. It is therefore not possible to provide figures on overall NHS expenditure per capita in East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire.

  Indeed, some of the expenditure on hospital and community services within these districts will in fact relate to cross-boundary flows of patients from other parts of the county. Similarly there are cross-boundary flows of patients from East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire to other districts and that needs to be taken into account if valid comparisons of per capita provision are to be made as between the two authorities.

  On the basis of the allocations to district health authorities in 1992–93 that my right hon. Friend announced on 4 February, at columns 125–28, the anticipated revenue expenditure on hospital and community health services for the population resident within the boundaries of East Dyfed health authority in the next financial year—irrespective of where those services are provided—will be of the order of £449 per capita.

  It should, however, be noted that that estimate is based on the discretionary revenue funds already allocated to the East Dyfed health authority. It does not take into account expenditure on any centrally funded developments, details of which are still to be announced. Nor does it take account of the supplementary funding that is to be provided in respect of the recently announced pay increases for doctors, nurses and professions allied to medicine.

  Discretionary minor capital provision has been excluded because that has been allocated pro rata to the anticipated income (from all resources) of district managed units in Wales—ie, it has been allocated on a catchment rather than a resident population basis—and East Dyfed's share therefore takes account of cross-boundary flows from other authorities. Similar considerations will apply to major capital provision, details of which will be announced soon.

SCOTLAND

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives are in place within the Scottish Office to encourage the employment of people with disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office takes a wide range of initiatives to encourage the employment of people with disabilities, which include the following. Disablement resettlement officers receive prior notification of recruitment campaigns to help them encourage disabled people to apply. All advertisements and application forms indicate clearly that the Scottish Office is an equal opportunities employer, and also carry the Employment Department's disability symbol. Educational qualification requirements for entry to certain grades are relaxed for disabled people. On appointment staff with disabilities are assessed to establish what special assistance may be required.

  The Scottish Office is fully committed to encouraging and supporting the employment of people with disabilities.

  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds have been spent on buildings in Scotland by Scottish Office Departments and the Scottish Courts Administration; and if he will give details of the expenditure on each building or work in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Lang
  Information in the form requested is not readily available.

  Buildings-related expenditure borne on the Scottish Office Administration vote (class XV, vote 20) in each of the last five years is:

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92 Plans

  Capital

  0·591

  1·703

  1·870

  2·062

  1·812

  1·714

  Running costs1

  12·315

  12·245

  13·806

  14·904

  17·064

  22·330

  Total

  12·906

  13·948

  15·676

  16·966

  18·876

  24·044

  Buildings-related expenditure incurred by the Scottish Courts Administration in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92 Plans

  Capital

  4·774

  4·825

  9·489

  15·390

  18·645

  22·035

  Running costs1

  6·293

  7·141

  8·803

  10·133

  14·220

  14·527

  Total

  11·067

  11·966

  18·292

  25·523

  32·865

  36·562

  1 Buildings-related running costs' includes, for example, rent and rates, minor repairs and maintenance and fuel and utilities.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the work force of the Scottish health service were disabled in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The percentage of registered disabled people employed by the NHS in Scotland in each year since 1979 is set out below. Health boards and the Common Services Agency are expected, like other employers, to comply with the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Acts.
  219

  Percentage of Disabled Employees in the National Health Service in Scotland

  Year

  Percentage

  1979

  0·6

  1980

  0·5

  1981

  0·5

  1982

  0·5

  1983

  0·4

  1984

  0·4

  1985

  0·5

  1986

  0·4

  1987

  0·3

  1988

  0·3

  1989

  0·2

  1990

  0·2

  Foresterhills Hospital Trust
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of capital allowed to be borrowed by the proposed Foresterhills hospital trust will be provided by way of public dividend capital.

  Mr. Lang
  Foresterhill trust has been allocated an external financing limit (EFL) of £105,000; this will enable the trust to invest £9·234 million in capital programmes.

  The loan which relates to the EFL will be made available to the trust as interest bearing debt. However, in line with the majority of trusts in England the originating capital debt of Foresterhill will be divided 50:50 public dividend capital (PDC)/interest-bearing debt (IDB).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit System
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to the benefit system since 1979 to encourage those on benefit to enter education while still looking for work.

  Housing benefit—Great Britain (Rent rebates and allowances)

  (i) LA tenants

  (ii)&(iii) Private and Housing Association tenants

  (a) Pensioner

  (b) Family

  (c) Other

  (a) Pensioner

  (b) Family

  (c) Other

  Premium:

  1. Maximum benefit

  752,000

  565,000

  406,000

  221,00

  110,000

  253,000

  2. Maximum with Non-dependant deduction

  104,000

  31,000

  67,000

  15,000

  5,000

  8,000

  3. Other Lesser amount

  819,000

  72,000

  143,000

  178,000

  11,000

  152,000

  56 per cent. of local authority tenants receive Housing Benefit, of which 32 per cent. are pensioners, 13 per cent. are families and 12 per cent other.

  42 per cent. of private and housing association tenants receive Housing Benefit, of which 18 per cent. are pensioners, 5 per cent. families and 18 per cent other.

  Notes:

  (i) Estimates of regional figures are unreliable.

  (ii) May 1991 and current information is not available.

  (iii) Rate rebate cases are excluded.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether optional tenant improvements added to local authority or housing association rents in Scotland qualify for assessment in eligibility for housing benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Housing benefit is intended to meet reasonable accommodation costs. Broadly this means rent and any compulsory service charges which are clearly related to the provision of adequate accommodation. A rent increase may be met by housing benefit if local
  220
  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1979 the concession—known as the 21-hour rule—which enabled unemployed people under 21 years of age to receive supplementary benefit while studying part-time was extended to those over 21 who had been unemployed for a year or more. In 1982, the qualifying period of unemployment was reduced from 12 to three months and periods of participation in the youth training scheme became eligible to be counted towards entitlement to supplementary benefit under this rule. These changes were carried through to the income support scheme which replaced supplementary benefit in 1988.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) pensioner households, (b) families with children and (c) other households, who are tenants of (i) local authorities and new towns, (ii) housing associations and (iii) other landlords, are estimated to be receiving (1) maximum housing benefit with no deductions for non-dependants, (2) maximum housing benefit but with deductions for non-dependants and (3) a lesser amount of housing benefit towards their rent payments (x) currently and (y) since May 1989 in Great Britain as a whole and in each region for which figures are available; and what proportion of the total number of tenants in each category they represent.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available estimates for May 1989 are set out in the table. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) on 3 February at column 96 for the May 1990 estimates.

  authorities, which have statutory responsibility for administering the scheme, consider the increase is reasonable. In deciding whether a rent increase is reasonable, authorities are expected to have regard to the nature and extent of any improvements made to the dwelling.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to change the rule whereby claimants for industrial deafness benefit have to prove that over a 10-year-period they were employed in occupations involving continuous noise.

  Mr. Scott
  Advice to the Department on occupational deafness is provided by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The council has not recommended a change in the rule regarding 10 years' work in a prescribed occupation and we have no plans for such a change.

  Actuarial Certificates
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each year since the regulation came into force the number of actuarial certificates issued detailing the transfer of assets from one pension fund to another.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Regulation 12 of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefit) Regulations 1991 provides for an actuarial certificate to be given on the transfer of a group of members from one occupational pension scheme to another without their consent. This certificate is to the effect that the members concerned will be no worse off as a result of the transfer and does not detail the transfer of assets.

  There is no requirement to notify the Department when such a certificate is given.

  Local Offices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what arrangements he has in place to relocate staff temporarily when the Paisley office is closed for development; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects works to start on the Paisley Piazza site; when he expects these works to be completed; and what arrangements he has in place to ensure the efficient operation of services at the Paisley office of his Department during the intervening period.

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of staff located at the Johnstone office in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many staff from the Johnstone office (a) have been transferred to the Paisley office since 1989 and (b) will be transferred to the Paisley office this year; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the Johnstone office of his Department is Crown property;
  222
  (2) if the Paisley office of his Department is Crown property.

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his strategy for the development of services provided from(a) the Paisley office and (b) the Johnstone office; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he has any plans to run down, close or recategorise the Johnstone office of his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The planning of services offered by social security offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the arrangements will be to notify people with terminal illnesses of the results of their applications for disability living allowance; whether this notification will indicate that the reason for qualification is linked to their terminal illness; if he will accept requests to notify carers rather than applicants: if he will publish the wording of notifications to both applicants and carers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  People awarded disability living allowance (DLA) on the ground that they are terminally ill will be sent notification of this decision. The award notice will tell the customer that they have been awarded the higher rate of DLA for help with personal care; it will make no mention of terminal illness. This notification will be accompanied by an information sheet explaining the criteria for awards of benefit at the available rates and rights of appeal where a person is unhappy with the decision on their claim.

  Under special provisions, a third party may make a claim on behalf of a terminally ill person but the law still requires that the notification of the decision should be sent to the person on whose behalf the claim has been made, except where a third party has been appointed to act on behalf of a customer who is unable to handle their own affairs. Again, the notification to the customer makes no mention of terminal illness.

  I will send the hon. Member a sample notification and information sheet shortly.

  Centralisation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions he has issued to district managers of the Benefits Agency regarding the centralisation of services and the development of caller offices.

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

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many social security claimants have been prosecuted and found guilty of claiming benefit while working and receiving wages in(a) Blyth Valley and (b) the north-east in the last two years.

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

  Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much(a) disablement benefit, (b) death grant, (c) injury benefit and (d) family credit is spent per head of population in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Wales.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much sickness and invalidity benefit is paid out per head in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Wales.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not available.

  Disability
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of his Department's work force have disabilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 1 June 1991, l·87 per cent. of the staff employed by the Department of Social Security and its executive agencies were registered as disabled. There is no information on staff with disabilities who choose not to register.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the top marginal tax rate possible(a) for a person in work paying income tax and (b) for a person at work on family credit and in receipt of housing benefit and community charge benefit.
  224
  Mr. Jack
  The same tax regime is applicable to all those liable to pay income tax, irrespective of whether they are also eligible for benefits. For those receiving in-work income-related benefits, however, the highest likely marginal tax rate would be 25 per cent. The current top marginal tax rate for any payer is 40 per cent. compared with 83 per cent. in 1979.

  North Yorkshire
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 11 February 1992]: Pursuant to my reply of 11 February, the information on expenditure in north Yorkshire is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, since 1979 the Government have increased total spending on social security in Great Britain by 40 per cent. in real terms and has focused extra help on low income working families, less well off pensioners and disabled people. We have virtually eliminated the unemployment trap and we have got rid of the worst elements of the poverty trap. People in north Yorkshire will have benefited from all these improvements.

  The creation of the benefits and contributions agencies in April 1991 has provided the opportunity for further improving efficiency and quality in the administration of social security business. In particular, the agencies have focused on improving service to the public and have issued their own customer charters. Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, and Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency, will write to my hon. Friend about their agencies' achievements in north Yorkshire. Copies of their letters will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

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

Training and Enterprise Councils
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress being made by the training and eterprise councils.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government are very satisfied with the progress being made by training and enterprise councils. TECs are turning their ambitious training and enterprise plans into practical action to improve training and business services in every part of the country.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the TECs face a critical situation—and that is not an overstatement of the case —due to inadequate funding? Is she also aware that, as a result, there is a distinct possibility that the councils may not sign a contract with the Government for next year? Does not the continuing increase in unemployment make the problem even worse?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I hesitate to say this, but I think that the noble Lord exaggerates the situation. It is speculative; negotiations for next year are still taking place. If we appoint leading and competent businessmen to run the training and enterprise councils, which they are doing with great commitment, we must also expect them to negotiate toughly with the regional officers.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent report by the Association of Municipal Authorities states that, although some TECs have established themselves very well locally, others appear to be in decline? The reason appears to be financial pressures, exacerbated by unemployment. In the present situation many employers are unwilling to offer placements. Can the Minister say what can be done about the situation?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am unaware of the source to which the noble Baroness referred. However, TECs are accounted and measured. There is great concern that they should provide —as they were set up to provide—needs totally adapted to the local areas that they are servicing. That was the idea behind their formation. There is a total commitment on the part of the Government that training money should follow the needs of unemployment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in view of the report chaired by Professor Fred Bayliss, under the auspices of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, which made it very clear that special training needs are
1256
not being met, what evidence does the Minister have that TECs are able to meet the training needs of special needs groups? If that was the situation six months ago when the report was issued, can the noble Baroness tell us how those needs will be met with the reduced funding which the TECs are receiving?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, there is a direct relationship between financing and the TECs meeting special needs. There are performance related bonuses which require TECs to achieve special targets on special needs before the payment is made. Therefore, their attention is very much focused on the matter. There may have been delays in some areas, but they are now being dealt with.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that we shall not see similar cuts to those made last year as regards training for special needs? For example, NACRO had to cut 7,000 job training positions and stop 24 schemes. Is the noble Baroness also aware that people who have special needs, and who are therefore very unattractive to businessmen running schemes which are meant to balance, are finding it increasingly difficult to receive any training at all?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern. However, I believe that there is a climate out there within which businesses are recognising their responsibilities to the community. As I said, there is a definitive contract commitment to work in this area. The Government are planning to spend £2.8 billion on training, enterprise and vocational programmes.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the Isle of Wight the TEC is largely achieving the kind of aims that she told the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, she was hoping would be achieved? Is my noble friend also aware that, although they have had difficulties—as indeed everyone has—on the whole, both industry and the TEC are working well together, as they are with other local authorities?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comment. Bearing in mind its situation, the Isle of Wight does not have one of the largest TEC budgets. However, my noble friend has emphasised the ability of TECs to work in partnership with education departments, local authorities, career services, employers and, where relevant, development corporations. The success is to be seen in many areas.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when a TEC from Cheshire gave evidence to EC Sub-Committee C about training, there was then a problem about having enough money to transport people, especially in rural areas, to places where they could receive such training? If the TECs are now even more short of money, will that not become a greater problem in the future?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the TECs have their budgets agreed from their corporate plans. Therefore, it is for them to decide the effective use of those finances.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that at present in the county of Somerset there are about 500 17 and 18 year-olds without places on training schemes who therefore receive no social security and consequently get into trouble? What do the Government propose to do about that situation?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not have evidence relating to specific areas, but I know that estimating the demand for the programme in specific areas has been somewhat difficult. Young people's true preferences have been hard to judge. It is clear, however, that the number of young people who are currently waiting to enter youth training is now considerably smaller. The Government are adjusting the figures to meet the needs.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is it not regrettable that just after it has been announced that there has been an increase of 53,000 in the number of people who are unemployed, the Government have decided to reduce expenditure on training next year by £170 million in real terms? Can the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, deny that training and enterprise councils are most concerned about the little money that is available to them to finance both youth and employment training? I believe that the figure is £110 million.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I have heard quoted the figure that the noble Lord has given of a reduction. However, the TECs' budget for next year will be increased by £196 million. The concern of their chairmen is part of their negotiating skills. Nevertheless, the turnover among those chairmen is lower than that in many parts of the private sector.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the Minister that I am not condemning all 82 TECs. I am simply saying that many of them face a critical situation and that the Government are not facing reality. Will the Minister confirm that her department is transferring resources from the northern TECs to the southern TECs?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the principle behind the resources is that they follow the need of the clients' location. If the noble Lord is referring specifically to his region, one must also draw attention to the other resources in that region, including the development corporation, in which the noble Lord is involved and which has made substantial efforts in training. One must also say that the area is alive and well. It must be pleased to be celebrating the award of its new city status.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the answer is yes.

House of Lords: Sitting Times
2.46 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret asked the Leader of the House:
Whether a Select Committee could consider the sitting times of the House so as to permit legislation to be considered earlier in the day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that a Select Committee in another place has been looking into the sittings of the House of Commons. In addition, the report of our own Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House will be published shortly. Of course, it is within the power of this House to establish whatever committees it wishes—or indeed to change its sitting time without first setting up a committee—but it might be thought sensible to wait for each House to consider their respective reports before looking into my noble friend's suggestion.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Will the committee in question consider various matters? Is my noble friend aware that this unelected and largely unpaid House sits more hours and does more work than any other legislative chamber in the whole world other than another place? Does my noble friend agree that it helps the workings of the House if its voluntary element has a reasonable degree of knowledge of the business that is taking place? Does my noble friend further agree that there are many times when the programme is organised but, unfortunately, starts so late in the day that proper consideration cannot be given to it? The business is then deferred to another day, when it might be highly difficult and inconvenient for Members of your Lordships' House to attend.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to the Charities Bill, which we began to consider on a Thursday afternoon at 3.30 p.m. and which was designed to be finished in one day, but we then had to start it again at seven o'clock yesterday evening with no fewer than 105 amendments to consider. Does my noble friend agree that that is probably undesirable?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think that all noble Lords will agree with me when I say that the House is richer for having among its Members noble Lords who do very important jobs in society. We might lose the benefit of their wisdom if we were to sit in the mornings. However, difficult decisions have to be made.
So far as the two committees are concerned, I referred to the committee that is chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe not because it is charged with the duty of considering the hours for which we sit in this Chamber, but because that committee is dealing with the committee structure. For that reason, it might be thought premature to set up a committee as was suggested by my noble friend. Of course, it is not for us to suggest what should be within the terms of

1259
reference of the committee that was set up in another place, which I understand is due to report on Friday this week.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is there not every possibility that when the report of the Select Committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is published we shall be able to debate it in the House? Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that the reference of the Charities Bill to a Standing Committee, which sat in the morning, was on the whole a success?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said about the Committee stage of the Charities Bill. Clearly, it is worth us considering carefully—it was not really an experiment—that attempt to make greater use of the Committee proceedings of the House. We shall all await with interest the report of the committee in another place. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for the work that he has done.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that if the House were to start sitting in the mornings regularly on a daily basis there is a distinct danger that Parkinson's Law would come into play, with the volume of debate expanding to fill the extra time available?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Lord has a good point, if I may say so. There is always the danger that if we were to sit earlier the House still would not rise that much earlier in the evening. However, we are a long way from that. All we are concerned with today is whether the matter should be studied at all in advance of the publication of the two reports to which I have referred. I suggest that it is far better for us to restrain ourselves for just a few days and then we may have an opportunity to debate the report of the committee that has sat under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. That—I say this in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—will be initially a matter for discussion through the usual channels.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am most grateful to him and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for the kindly remarks they made about the committee which I have the honour to chair? I agree with what my noble friend said about restraint at the moment. Perhaps I may inform my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that I believe that the report of the committee will be published on Thursday week. I recommend it as a suitable bed companion to any of your Lordships who suffer from insomnia.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe for giving us that information. I believe that the Jopling Committee Report will be published the day after tomorrow. I am grateful to my noble friend for telling us when his report will be published.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, now that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is aware that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has finished his first task, should he book him now, before he goes away, to do the study for which the noble Viscount asked?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the thoroughness with which my noble friend has approached the task which he was set has condemned him to many more similar onerous duties.

EC: Fish Catch Regulations
2.53 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in respect of the submission to the European Communities of nominal fish catch statistics by member states fishing in the North-East and North-West Atlantic, as required by Council Regulations 3880/91 and 3881/91 of 19th December 1991, they will provide the estimated cost, and the administrative steps necessary, to ensure compliance.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the United Kingdom has been compiling this information both for its own purposes and to submit to international bodies for at least 20 years. These regulations convert long-established practice into Community legislation so that the Commission can meet its obligations under certain international conventions. It is not envisaged that compliance with the regulations will require additional costs or administrative steps for the United Kingdom.
Before I sit down I must offer the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is aware of my position, a deep apology. I apologise also to the House. Owing to circumstances beyond my control, I am not in a position to give supplementary answers today. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will put this Question down again when one of us will satisfy him to the best of our ability.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her response and for her indication that the Government take these matters seriously and that they will give a considered reply. Will she undertake to bring to the attention of her right honourable friend that the real matters requiring answers relate to why some 31 pages of European regulations should be allowed by the Government to become incorporated into British law, especially in view of the fact that the information which the United Kingdom is now required to give to the European Commission is readily obtainable by the Commission picking up the telephone and speaking to the international organisations involved? Will the Minister also convey to her right honourable friend the fact that this country contributes some £9 million per annum towards this statistical section of the Community to enable it to gather information? Will she ask her right honourable friend whether he is satisfied that what the British taxpayer spends on this silly legislation is justified?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have taken note of the various points made by the noble Lord, and I shall pass them to my right honourable friend.

Legal Aid
2.56 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will widen the scope of legal aid to assist those who otherwise could not meet the costs of defending an action in the High Court.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, legal aid is available to those defending an action in the High Court, provided that the Legal Aid Board is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for defending the action and that the applicant's disposable income and capital are within the financial limits. The Government are concerned about those individuals who may be financially ineligible for legal aid yet who face high costs. They made various proposals for dealing with that problem in the recent consultation paper on eligibility for civil legal aid.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Does he agree that there nevertheless remains the problem which was encapsulated in my Question? I believe that he does. Secondly, will he confirm that everyone has the right to defend himself or herself in the High Court unless he or she is a vexatious litigant?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree that there is a problem, and that is why the Government addressed it in the consultation paper to which I referred. On the second point, I confirm that any person has the right to defend himself or herself in the High Court.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm my belief that if a defendant wins his action against a legally aided plaintiff he receives his costs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is a statutory limitation on the liability for costs for which the legally aided person may be liable. The court has to have regard to all the circumstances in assessing the amount of any liability. There are some circumstances in which the successful opponent of an assisted person may be able to have his costs refunded from the Legal Aid Board.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that many of us in the House deplore the unruly and disorderly manner in which certain lawyers saw fit to receive his announcement of proposed changes to the legal aid system?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, while I appreciate the sentiments that the noble Lord has expressed, that matter is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House may be assured that I was not one of the lawyers involved. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will agree that there is a problem as regards not only those who wish to defend actions in the High Court but those
1262
who rightfully wish to bring them. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the Law Society and the Legal Action Group commissioned a survey last year as a result of which it was found that eligibility for advice and assistance dropped from 66 per cent. of the population, representing 36 million people, in 1979, to 37 per cent of the population, representing 20 million people, in 1990?
In personal injury cases, where as the noble and learned Lord knows the income limit is higher, in 1979 81 per cent. of the households were eligible. The figure has fallen to 57 per cent. in 1990. Is that not a worrying situation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these figures are estimates based on various assumptions. The reliability of the estimates depends on the accuracy of the assumptions, and many such assumptions can be made. While I read with interest the mathematics that lie behind these estimates, I am more concerned with what actually happens—the real figures. For example, in 1979–80, about 191,000 civil legal aid certificates were issued. By 1991, the figure had increased by 56 per cent. to over 297,000. It is clear that many more people today receive the benefit of legal aid than received it in 1979.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend tell us what is the total expenditure on legal aid this year compared with what it was five years ago?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the gross expenditure on legal aid for this financial year appears to be in excess of £1 billion. The figure has risen by more than 50 per cent. over the five-year period.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether the productivity of the legal profession has risen with the enormous rewards it receives?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that that question also is somewhat wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the light of the Question on the Order Paper, is it not the case that the problem is not that the poor may be suffering, as they may be covered, or that the rich are suffering, as they can afford it? Is not the real problem the people who come between the poor and the rich?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no problem for those who are so wealthy that they can afford the fees they may be charged. The president of the Law Society last year warned his members that if they were involved in litigation they would not be able to afford their own fees. The situation of those in the intermediate level between what the noble Lord described as the poor and the rich is a problem. That is what our consultation paper addressed. It is difficult and so far as I know the problem has not yet been solved in any country in the world which has a legal system remotely like ours. In the consultation paper I

1263
put forward a number of proposals for solving the problem. None is ideal but I hope that we shall be able to make progress with it.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, the Question refers to the costs of defending an action. Is it not time that we looked closely at the charges of the legal profession? It has seemed to me since I came to the House that it is the strongest trade union in the country.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am interested, particularly on behalf of taxpayers, in the costs involved in litigation. The noble Lord will be aware that securing changes is not the easiest task with which I am confronted.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, after the short debate on the National Health Service and before the short debate on the public library system, my noble friend Lord Howe will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on defence equipment.
I should like to say a word about this afternoon's debates standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunter of Newington and Lord Willis. 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 debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, it means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of nine minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length he would do so at the expense of subsequent speakers in the debate. In the case of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose a formal time limit but I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it would conform to the spirit of these short debates if they would keep their speeches within the 15 minutes which apply to the mover of the Motion.

National Health Service: R&D
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington rose to call attention to the importance of research and development for the future of the National Health Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, major reforms were embedded in the National Health Service Act 1990. At the same time, the Government accepted the substance of the House of Lords Select Committee report on research in the National Health Service and decided to appoint a director of research and development and that he should be a member of the NHS management board. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, is not here today. As chairman of the Select Committee he has achieved a great deal and the success, I believe, is substantially due to him.
It is my intention to argue the case that the new research and advisory machinery introduced by the director should produce the information for change and also information about the cost of procedures. I have spoken to a number of consultants in different parts of the country and I do not think there is any doubt that he has stimulated them enormously and they are looking forward eagerly to participating in the schemes which are now being formulated.
There is no mention in the reforms that implies rationing of care, yet many are worried that we cannot continue to provide resources to meet health needs. Some of our health economists are thinking about these matters and the whole question of consensus rationing is being considered. I shall mention this again later.
At present authorities make decisions about the allocation of resources to different categories of care. Doctors decide about allocation to individual patients taking into account their detailed personal and medical circumstances. The size of the waiting list may mean that resources are not immediately available. The nature of the waiting list will be an important signal as long as this facility is available. If it is not available, the demand for adequate resources will be immediate.
Among the important challenges for the future there are two serious conditions that occur frequently. One is heart and vascular disease, the other cancer. Both have been linked to diet and personal habits, so much so that we are now urged to eat healthy foods and conduct our life-style in healthy ways.
Formidable problems have existed over past years and many of the specific causes of diseases have been discovered. When that has happened steps can be taken to treat or prevent the condition. One example is that we know that scurvy is due to a deficiency of vitamin C and that the first discovery of importance was that the juice of limes cured the condition. But the other factors supposed to contribute to the situation before this discovery bear a remarkable resemblance to today's cancer list. Here are some examples: diet, depression, infection, tobacco, damp, constitutional heredity and poor environment. All had supporters but scurvy was due only and entirely to a vitamin deficiency. That must constitute an important lesson for other fields such as the cancer field.
Inevitably, cancer and heart disease will present themselves as a challenge to the director and his staff. There are, of course, proven causes of cancer such as smoking and various chemicals, but what of the cancers thought to be associated with food intake? Overall there is insufficient evidence to recommend reducing fat or food consumption with the aim of reducing the risk of cancer. Yet the nature of cancer varies in different parts of the world where there are different lifestyles and environments.
The results of various investigations have suggested that a range of dietary measures have an impact on cancer, but the evidence of these factors is not conclusive enough to warrant recommendation. This is the view of the Royal College of Physicians. However, Sir Richard Doll in his book The Causes of Cancer links no less than one-third of cancers to diet.
The analysis of statistics around the world reveals that the incidence of different cancers is different in different countries—for example, breast and colon cancers occur in western society and stomach cancers in Japan. This could suggest that the cause must lie in some difference between societies, the most obvious of which is diet. The temptation has become overwhelming, and has spread rapidly in some sections of the medical profession, to suggest that food causes cancer and therefore the thing to do is to eat healthy food. The healthy food lobby has taken off and it is now considered to be part of the "new public health".
Attempts to treat vascular disease with diet, particularly through the control of sodium intake and low cholesterol diets, have not been very successful. To confirm that view one needs only to read the weekend's newspapers and last week's British Medical Journal. Certainly it is possible to reduce the salt to low levels with some alteration in blood pressure, but the consequences of this are uncertain. We also know that the cholesterol situation is more complicated from the biochemical point of view than was first thought. In contrast to this lack of progress in the treatment of vascular disease, remarkable progress has been made in the surgical treatment of vascular disease and this illustrates another important issue which faces the director of research and which requires monitoring and costing.
Ten years ago surgery was considered to be of limited use in the treatment of coronary artery disease and it was thought that perhaps treatment should be confined to those under the age of 50. Now it is known that satisfactory results can be achieved in respect of people in their 70s with reasonable life prospects. There is other evidence also to support the idea that age is no longer a contradiction to major surgery.
I wish to ask the Minister what machinery has existed in the past and whether it is suggested now to monitor situations where new or extended treatments are introduced, often at substantial costs. At least now it will be possible to have this kind of situation studied and to have the results of those studies placed before the management board and the health authorities. The situation can also be analysed from the point of view of the provider of equipment and accommodation. As I said, there is an increased awareness among staff at all levels as to the importance of these studies. I understand that the machinery to implement the studies will shortly be in place. The discovery and identification of treatments and their improvement is a vital part of an active dedicated service.
I wish to return briefly to the question of consensus management and of resources. The essence of the reforms under the 1990 health Act is the separation of the functions of purchasing health care by health authorities from the provision of care by providers such as hospitals or others. The two are linked by contracts. This has shifted some of the power to prescribe how resources will be allocated from doctors and nurses in favour of managers and health authorities. At the same time it is recognised that only doctors and nurses acting as general managers can really manage the use of resources for patients. It is
1266
obvious that to achieve a successful and efficient running of the NHS there should be a willing partnership between professional activity and management.
In 1972 I chaired a working party in the Department of Health which made recommendations about medical administrators in the NHS. Recommendations were made on how medical men could be retrained and how they could become involved in administrative matters. The response of the Government was to introduce a form of consensus management; at that stage it constituted an agreement between those providing the actual care. But for one reason or another this did not produce any real solution to the problem. I now believe this requires a two tier system with doctors represented at both levels. The system of providers and purchasers introduced by the Government in 1990 involves an element of financial control contributed to by managers and doctors at two levels. This does not go as far as the Oregon proposals in the United States which remove responsibilities from doctors and nurses by legislation and prevent treatment of certain categories of patients.
Some people have linked the concept of consensus management with the idea of quality adjusted life years (QALY) as a basis for allocating resources not to patients but to the more cost-effective procedures. Such a procedure removes from the individual doctor the possibility of making decisions only in the interests of the patient. I believe that the use of quality adjusted life years as a means of allocating resources is wrong.
From the early experience of the newly-introduced system under the 1990 Act, though there has been, as I have said, some shifting of power in the allocation of resources in favour of managers and health authorities this is relatively modest and I believe fully justified by the results. The medical profession does not object, as it undoubtedly would, to a number of other procedures that I have mentioned. The House would like to hear the Government's view on these matters, particularly on the matter of quality adjusted life years. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, we all owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for starting a debate in the course of which I hope the sum total of speeches will provide useful guidance to the Central Research and Development Committee. I speak only too obviously as a layman but one who has become convinced over the years of the important doors which health research has already opened for the health profession. I am also aware of the handicaps under which doctors and those in other disciplines work while many doors still remain firmly shut.
Research has an obvious part to play—the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has already made this clear—in the prevention of illness and injury, and still more in their acute treatment. It equally has a role to play in the subsequent attempt to restore function which illness or injury has impaired. Therefore I wish to speak about rehabilitation research, and for two main

1267
reasons. First, I believe it can provide benefits equal to those gained through research into prevention or acute treatment. Secondly, this area of research, having suffered much neglect, now shows some signs of improvement. The number of relevant research papers is growing. Contributors to them come from a wider range of disciplines. In addition, half the membership of the important Society for Research in Rehabilitation is non-medical. That is important because collaborative research between disciplines has a value which goes beyond its contribution to the total amount of knowledge.
The contribution itself is of enormous importance. It ranges from the urgent need which we all recognise to reduce costs, both human and financial, right through the social claim which disabled people rightly make to play a greater part in the nation's activities, to the potential transformation of quality of life by more enlightened methods of rehabilitation and the availability and affordability of complex technological equipment.
Only a few days ago I was discussing the vast toll, both in human suffering and economic loss, exacted by disorders (often barely tolerable) in the functioning of our backs. Sadly, that is only one example of hundreds of afflictions which cause misery to those who suffer and to those who care for them as well as imposing a growing burden of cost on the nation.
Among all the conflicting claims there is no escape from the difficult task of setting priorities, not only between the different stages of health care—prevention, treatment, rehabilitation—but also between a goodly number of competitors in rehabilitation research alone.
My noble friend will know that many ideas have been put before her right honourable friend and her honourable friends in her department by the neurological charities and many others in their response to The Health of the Nation. To a layman it is all too evident that the right ordering of priorities for research presents a real challenge.
In that connection, I look with some confidence and even more hope at the fairly young Central Research and Development Committee of which I spoke earlier. In particular, in the context of the field which I am discussing, I look to my friend Professor Lindsay McLellan, one of its distinguished members and a champion of the claims of disabled people. I shall be surprised and disappointed if he does not press strongly for research for their benefit to be lifted high on the council's agenda.
I hope—but this may merely reflect the natural inclination of a layman—that careful consideration will be given to those areas of research which include a clear practical content. Such research would include, for instance, projects which are directed towards developing a man or woman's capacity for employment; towards enabling more disabled people to remain in their own homes; towards the recruitment of more therapists (which is a very urgent need); towards widening the skill and expertise of carers who look after the disabled; and towards
1268
providing a new stimulus for those in a position to produce much needed equipment, both simple and sophisticated.
Recent developments and news of changed attitudes, at a variety of research levels and across a spectrum of different disciplines, give me some grounds for hope. I shall be greatly encouraged if my noble friend, when she replies, can assure me that my hopes are well founded. In particular, I hope that she can assure me that Her Majesty's Government will give enthusiastic backing to rehabilitation research and development both through the Central Research and Development Committee and through the department's own programme. I understand that several of that programme's themes to which the department has recently given priority (and I speak particularly of research into the development of community care) could be of deep significance to disabled people.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hunter for choosing this topic because it allows the House to reflect further on the work of the Select Committee of the House which looked into priorities in medical research with particular reference to the needs of the National Health Service.
Noble Lords will remember that the Select Committee's report was published in March 1988. The Government finally responded to that report some 18 months later in December 1989. However, they rejected our central proposal to create a National Health Service research authority independent of but linked to the Department of Health which could ask its own questions. Instead, as my noble friend said, the Government have created the post of Director of Research and Development, the holder of which has a seat on the National Health Service Management Executive. That was achieved after some pressure, particularly during Questions in this House.
From the programmes developed under the aegis of the new DRD, Professor Michael Peckham, as described in the Government's document Research for Health, which was published in September last year, it appears that the research programme for the National Health Service, which sounds very ambitious, will be under the general control of the Department of Health, however devolved to regions the conduct of that research may be. The plans set out in that document place much emphasis on the delegation of the research and development to the regions with the aim of increasing overall the percentage of expenditure on research and development to 1.5 per cent. of the total National Health Service budget over a five year period.
I find it very hard to believe that that is feasible given that the Select Committee found that the National Health Service spends only 0.2 per cent. of its budget on research and development at present, based on a sum of £40 million. That sum was stretched to £60 million by a report on research in the National Health Service by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. That still does not bring the

1269
percentage to very much more than 0.2 per cent. of the budget, whereas figure 2 in the department's document estimates expenditure on research and development by the National Health Service and the Department of Health at £225 million in 1989–90—about 1 per cent. of the whole. I can only suggest that that larger sum has been arrived at because some of the items included in that figure are not strictly research activities and possibly not strictly funded by the National Health Service. Be that as it may, an increase to 1.5 per cent. over a five year period requires a major expansion of research activities, particularly if we take the present percentage to be 0.2 per cent. rather than 1 per cent. as suggested in the document.
I wonder whether the Government are not being a little unrealistic. Good research and development into the workings of the National Health Service cannot be achieved overnight. There are relatively few research workers who are experienced and competent in health services research because there are only a few centres of excellence in the country which attract staff of the right calibre and train them in the methodologies required.
An essential characteristic of health services research or public health medicine research is that, to be effective, it has to be a team effort. The team must be multi-disciplinary. For example, when inquiring into the reasons why patients behave as they do or use services in a certain way it is not sufficient for research to be designed or carried out by clinically trained doctors alone. There is also a need for input from behavioural scientists such as anthropologists, medical sociologists, psychologists as well as health economists, demographers and statisticians.
To build a team of such experts requires time and patience. The stability of the unit housing the team is important because each of the experts comes from a different home discipline. If they are not given security in their health services research unit they will tend to desert it and go back to the security of their own academic base. That is why the committee put emphasis on the creation and funding of research programmes lasting over a period of five to 10 years or more with a guaranteed core funding element rather than projects which are temporary and intended to answer specific questions.
For that reason I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure the House that programmes of research will be backed and not merely projects. The Select Committee felt that it was important to build on the three or four existing centres of excellence in health services research which could act as nuclei for the training of future researchers as well as administrators who would then have a real grasp of the dynamics of how health services operate. In the Government's document I do not see any recognition of the fact that health service research workers need to be trained.
In that document there is a directive that each region should appoint a director of research and development and that regional R&D plans should be published by September this year. I am worried that such plans may be put together hurriedly and without adequate reflection. Are there sufficient high caliber
1270
candidates to supply all the regions in such a short time? Academic units will have to be consulted when drawing up such plans. I very much hope that they will be consulted; otherwise, even more data may be collected—which is hard to conceive of—without any clear purpose. It will be called research rather than simply the collection of statistics.
Turning from what sounds a rather critical remark, I understand the need for information technology. Some of the information that has been collected about health service activities since the new Bill became an Act has been useful. But there is a lot of work involving data collection which we could do without. I have a feeling that if the target of 1.5 per cent. NHS expenditure is reached too hurriedly the money may not be well spent. At worst it may even detract from patient care rather than improve it because of a diversion of funds. There is an impression that some of the best academic units in public health medicine in primary care will still be struggling for survival when public funds may be spent on relatively low quality research in the regions to achieve regional research and development targets. I very much hope that I am wrong. I plead for full support and collaboration with the few centres of high quality health services research that exist. I mention no names. I could do so but that would be invidious at this stage.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness two questions. Does she know of any definitive research which has been commissioned to follow up the recent questions raised by the department's inquiries into health care needs? There were some five or six, including diabetes, stroke, hip replacement, renal problems, and so on. Many of us are critical of the Government's decision to press ahead with the NHS reforms in advance of any pilot studies. We were assured that the first wave of trusts or fund holders would be studied and would act as pilot schemes. Can the Minister tell us how the National Health Service changes are now being evaluated? Can she answer the criticism that the first wave candidates and the best organised and therefore most likely to be able to cope with the changes? Are the data which we are being given only those which reflect the credit side and not the debit side of the changes? For instance, how much money is being spent by certain fund holding general practices on private sector facilities, thus leaving the National Health Service with less money to fund its own provider units?
I have run out of time. I had intended to discuss health promotion and research to some extent. However, I know that my noble friend Lord Butterfield will cover that area and I leave it to him to do so.
3.35 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, all noble Lords taking part in this debate will be aware that it was not originally my intention to speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, who has considerable experience in the field of cancer research—her work for the Imperial Cancer Research Fund is well known —had intended to speak from these Benches. We felt that it was important to put forward a speaker. We

1271
attach enormous importance to research and development, particularly in the area which directly concerns patients and which is referred to as clinical research. On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and all of us on these Benches, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject.
I understand from the notes which I hastily took from my noble friend, who knows much more about this subject than I do, that the taxpayer directly through the Medical Research Council funds research up to slightly more than £200 million a year. A similar sum comes from the voluntary sector. It appears that only about 25 per cent. of research funded through the Medical Research Council directly involves patients and the benefits to patients.
The three points that my noble friend wanted to raise come under the heading of clinical research: first, the optimum use of nursing resources; secondly, health needs in particular districts; and, thirdly, research into care of the elderly, a topic which touches many people like myself who are in the middle of middle age and lucky enough still to have an elderly parent.
My noble friend came across a quotation which is worth repeating. There is no doubt that a great deal of research which directly involves the patient takes place after the stage of development. It is rather putting the coach before the horses. For reasons which are perfectly well understood but widely criticised, the Government have sought to introduce changes in the way in which patients receive attention. They have changed the emphasis from care directly in the hospitals to care in the community. They have taken a business approach.
The Life and Times of Dr. Thomas Hodgkin is a book which describes an eminent physician who practised in what I might call Dickensian London. He did a lot of work for the poor in Guy's Hospital. He attacked the method of providing medical care for the destitute, in which he was much involved, whereby contracts were let for specified periods of time to the lowest bidder. He charged the arrangement with faulty assessment; namely, that business techniques could be used to obtain care at the most efficient price. He argued that in business the quality of the delivered product could be assessed and a determination could be made of whether the lowest bidder had delivered the object of the bid in an acceptable form. He stated that in medicine, however, the public had no adequate means of testing the comparative value of the advice offered or the amount of services rendered. I suggest that that point is as relevant today as it was in the days of Dickens.
To return to the three points that I wanted to cover in respect of clinical research, I pick up the issue of research into the best use of nursing resources. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of discussion and experimentation in the substitution which has shown benefit to patients and considerable benefits in terms of cost reductions. The studies are all, no doubt, very valuable individually. However, perhaps in her reply to the debate, the Minister will be
1272
able to say whether there is a plan to gather comprehensively together all the results in order that the overall picture may be assessed.
We are talking about the balance between cost savings and the benefit for patients. There is the substitution of nursing staff for medical staff and nurse practitioners. There is also the substitution between nursing staff and other health service occupations and professions and the overlap in the community with social workers, and so on. It is an area in which a great deal is being done. However, a great deal needs to be done to collect the information in order that it may be acted upon where necessary.
The second point that my noble friend wished to touch upon is the health needs in particular districts. They are obvious if one walks through London. It is quite clear that as a result of the Government's policies with regard to taking people out of hospital and placing them in the community, there are many people who are not in the best of mental health. In such areas as Tower Hamlets an area which is characterised by a number of cheap hostels and a home run by the Salvation Army, there are a great number of people who are in need of a specific health service. That would not be the case in rural areas. Indeed, the health requirements in urban areas such as London, Manchester, Liverpool or Glasgow are clearly distinctly different, even to the layman, from those in less dense areas in terms of age difference if nothing else. Some areas have concentrations of elderly people. In others there is a greater number of young people.
My noble friend's third point is dear to my heart. I have an elderly mother who recently had an operation to replace a kneecap. When I brought my mother home from hospital it was quite clear that if I had not been able to arrange some very able, almost full-time, help in order to rehabilitate her over a number of weeks she would have had great difficulty. At that time I considered the position of some elderly people—conditions vary from area to area—who, after having excellent treatment in hospital, go straight back to their homes in which they will not have supervision for exercise or physiotherapy, let alone diet. How much research has been done in that area? How much research has been collated and disseminated?
I am sure that I have not done justice to the points that my noble friend wished to raise. However, I have at least made the point that clinical research is an issue in which we on these Benches are much interested and about which we are much concerned. As I said only the other day on another subject, as time goes by there will be more and more elderly people in our society. I believe that today a new magazine is published called the Oldie. Whether or not that publication will last for long is difficult to judge, but it emphasises that it is even to the forefront of journalists' minds that the balance of society is changing between old and young.
I conclude on that point. I look forward to the noble Baroness giving a reply which will make us optimistic about the changes that are taking place and the benefits that will come from them in the near future.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I never ascend the steps of a pulpit, even in the smallest country parish, without a certain nervousness. My trepidation on this occasion can therefore be imagined.
I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for initiating a debate on this important subject. It is a cause for profound thanksgiving that advances in medical knowledge gained through research have led to the alleviation of a great deal of suffering. It is obviously right both to encourage that research and to honour those engaged in it. Equally, there is common consent that medical research should always be accompanied by reflection on the implications of the knowledge that is gained and, as a consequence, by regulations which control the use to which the knowledge is put.
Those matters were discussed in this House at length and with very great authority two years ago during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. It would be impertinent of me to think that I could in any way aspire to the wisdom and experience which were demonstrated on that occasion. But whenever questions concerning medical research are raised, I believe that it is right to remind ourselves of the need to pay close attention to the ethical issues which inevitably arise.
We are all aware that, as the frontiers of knowledge are extended, some of the possibilities arising out of that knowledge are not always in the best interests of humanity and the natural world. Furthermore, it seems to be in the nature of research that it will always push to the very limit of the controls that are set. That is why quite rightly both Houses of Parliament have taken pains to ensure that proper regulations and advisory bodies have been established to keep pace with advances in medical research.
There are three points that I should briefly like to make. Last autumn at the invitation of the Norwich Medico Chirurgical Society I took part in a debate about in vitro fertilisation and embryo research. I was impressed not only by the advances in knowledge and technique that had been achieved, but more particularly by the sensitivity and compassion with which its members spoke of their work. As one would expect, we could not agree about a number of issues, but I greatly admired the profound and sensitive care being demonstrated for the people they were helping.
Nevertheless, I remained uneasy. The reason was based on a Christian assessment of human nature, an assessment which I believe is also inherently rational: that is, that human nature is corruptible, our motives easily mixed and that we are not always capable by ourselves of judging what is best for the human race. That is why controls are always necessary and why, like many in my profession, I remain cautious and conservative in such matters.
The second point arises from another meeting of the Norwich Medico Chirurgical Society when, during its annual dinner three years ago, I asked a senior consultant about the composition of the local ethical committee. Several names were mentioned whom I knew to be expert in their field of medicine, thoughtful
1274
and some of them committed Christians. But none of them had any formal training in the field of ethics. It was characteristic of their generosity that subsequently I was invited to nominate a representative who had expertise in this area, and one of my clergy who has studied medical ethics for many years became a member of the committee and is now its chairman.
The point is this. When establishing regulating bodies to advise upon research, it is necessary not merely to make sure that the terms of reference are well balanced but also that the membership of such bodies includes those who have professional expertise in the field of moral judgments. Of course we are all engaged most days in asking ourselves about what is right and wrong—at least I hope we are—but for those in my profession it is also part of the work for which we are trained.
I have twice used the example of the Norwich Medico Chirurgical Society, which may not be a body well known to everyone. It was founded in 1867, I think as much a dining club as a gathering for academic discussion. They used to meet on the night of the full moon so that they could see the road better on their way home. If any of your Lordships is ever invited to address the society, I strongly advise acceptance. The company is good, the food excellent and instead of a fee they present their speakers with a case of very good claret.
My final point is more general. During the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman—a valued neighbour of mine in Norfolk—said:
"Science will never provide the answers to the ultimate questions: the question of what brought about what we call life and what it is that gives man his unique quality in the world of living organisms".—[Official Report, 7/12/89; col. 1041.]
I hope that I am not stretching those words beyond their proper meaning by saying that there is implicit in that humble agnosticism which is a characteristic of the greatest scientists the conviction that other disciplines, not least theology, have much to contribute in the search for truth and wholeness. However, in order to do so they must be in dialogue with one another and preferably in partnership. It is also necessary that each discipline practises the virtue of humility. That is the only proper attitude towards a search for truth, which is ultimately beyond the grasp of any single branch of knowledge.
It is in that spirit that I offer these brief thoughts concerning the vital relationship between the medical profession and my own and between the insights of scientific research and theological reflection. I wish to add finally that, as well as being conscious of the great privilege of belonging to this House I am most grateful for the kindness and generosity that have been shown to me as a new Member. I thank your Lordships for the courtesy with which you have listened to me on this first and somewhat terrifying occasion.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, in the 33 years during which I have been a Member of your Lordships' House this is the first occasion on which I have had the privilege of congratulating a maiden speaker.

1275
"Privilege" is not merely a conventional word; not only is it a privilege but it is an honour to follow such a distinguished, humane and wise speech. At a time when the Church is under a great deal of criticism —some of it not entirely unjustified—it would be good for those who criticise it to study well the speech to which we have just listened. The right reverend Prelate has a distinguished record. He trained at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst and in the Church as a whole. He is Bishop of a beautiful city which I know only as a result of time spent there when in the Territorial Army. The inhabitants of Norwich are extremely fortunate in having a bishop of such distinction. The more often the right reverend Prelate is able to address your Lordships' House, the richer it and the country at large will be.
I am a long-standing member of the all-party parliamentary chemical industry group. I was detailed into it by a Member of your Lordships' House, but time prevents me from giving a longer explanation. I pointed out that, as one who had spent his working life in the controversial world of insurance, my knowledge of chemistry and pharmaceuticals was less than nil. However, membership has enabled me to visit a number of pharmaceutical companies. I also have a young daughter who is a nursing sister and who sometimes keeps me on the straight and narrow. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, has, not for the first time, given your Lordships the opportunity to discuss an important subject. The pharmaceutical industry is responsible for 21 per cent. of the work carried out in research and development. According to a most interesting article in The Times supplement, a little more than £1 billion was spent in 1990 on research and development.
Perhaps I may recount briefly a personal experience. In 1941 I had a virulent attack of measles followed by a mastoid in both ears. Penicillin had not then been discovered and I had to rely on M&B. A nephew of ours has also suffered from a bad mastoid since Sir Alexander Fleming's great discovery. He is not completely cured, nor am I. However, I believe that those who criticise the pharmaceutical industry and have reservations about research and development—we are all entitled to our views—should bear in mind that those illnesses would not have been overcome if it had not been for research and development.
On two occasions I have had the pleasure of visiting Terlings Park near Harlow where an enormous amount is being done on Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and so forth. My wife and I have a friend aged 60 who is in the terminal stages of Parkinson's disease. As members of the medical profession will know, it is a most distressing sight. It makes one recognise the vital importance of the pharmaceutical industry.
The operative word in the noble Lord's Motion is "future". Due to the enormous amount of progress made in R&D and in the pharmaceutical industry, stays in hospital are short. I know that from an experience four years ago when I had my gall-bladder removed. If I had had the operation 25 years ago goodness knows how long I would have been in
1276
hospital. However, I stayed for only nine days. Short stays are due in no uncertain terms to the excellent work which people in this country have undertaken in research and development.
As progress is made we see breakthroughs in illnesses such as leukaemia. We have read about the child of one of our distinguished citizens who may have to wait four years before knowing whether the leukaemia has been cured. The more that is done in research and development, the more promising is the outlook for youngsters and elderly people.
Again, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on a notable maiden speech and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for initiating the debate. I am sure that at a time when the National Health Service has become a political football, my noble friend the Minister will note that this House has debated a Motion which even these days can hardly become the subject of party politics.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who, as on so many occasions, has given the House the opportunity of debating such an important subject. In particular, I wish to express my thanks and admiration to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I greatly enjoyed his speech. I shall be in his diocese this weekend and I ask him to convey to members of the learned society of which he spoke my open offer to address them. If he does so I shall share the cask with him.
As time is short I wish to concentrate entirely on Alzheimer's disease, which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland. The principal demographic changes of the 1990s will not be an overall increase in the number of pensioners but a rapid increase in the number of elderly people, in particular those over the age of 85. The OPCS estimate is that the number aged 85 and over will increase from 865,000 in 1991 to 1,146,000 at the turn of the century. That is an extremely large number and an extremely rapid increase. It is that age group in which so many sufferers from dementia are to be found.
The people who are most likely to suffer are the very elderly. The number of people with Alzheimer's disease in the United Kingdom has been estimated to be about half a million. Dementia is usually a disease of old age although it occasionally affects middle-aged people. It is spread equally across all groups of society and does not appear to be linked with sex, social class, ethnic groups, geographic locations, or anything else. Recent surveys have revealed that the prevalence of dementia in the population is as follows: aged 40–65, less than one in a 1,000; aged 65–70, two in 100; aged 70–80, five in 100; aged over 80, 20 in 100. Therefore, we are talking about roughly 1 per cent. of our population and that is likely to increase. Therefore, it is extremely urgent that Alzheimer's disease is looked at not only as a medical problem but as a social problem. If there are half a million sufferers of Alzheimer's disease, there are at least another half a million caring for those people—mostly at home, but there are many in hospitals and nursing homes.

1277
I am proud to be closely associated with the Alzheimer's Disease Society. I greatly admire the work that it does and the work carried out by its research team. Not only do I admire the way in which families of those suffering from Alzheimer's disease are supported but I also admire the work carried out by its research team; in particular by Professor Wilcock who is a professor of care of the elderly at Frenchay Hospital in Bristol and chairman of the research panel of the Alzheimer's Disease Society.
The problems are great. Many of your Lordships will have recently seen the report that a leading research team at St. Mary's Paddington has been split up and that Dr. John Hardy and other outstanding researchers have moved to the United States. Of course, that will undermine some of the work being done at St. Mary's. That is an extremely sad situation.
Why are we suffering from the departure of some of our most able scientists to other parts of the world and especially to the United States? Perhaps I may mention a few reasons for that. First, there is the problem of university funding. Whatever the Government say about more money than ever being poured into universities, there is no doubt that the budgets for research are decreasing in real terms. Research which can be linked to industry is being encouraged but industry will not pay and medical research will not be encouraged unless there is a short-term financial spin-off. That is an unfortunate social approach to take to research.
Secondly, the Government would have us believe that they have increased adequately the Medical Research Council's funding. It is difficult to reconcile that with the increasingly alarming stories of the MRC's inability to fund projects which they have rated highly as important work which they wish to support.
There are problems also as regards remuneration. Salaries of research workers are poor compared with those available in industry and commerce. Many researchers earn considerably higher salaries if they accept an offer to work at, for example, a pharmaceutical company. I give an example of a PhD student. He undertakes three or four years as an undergraduate living on a grant. He is then expected to live on about £5,000 per year for the next three years while he undertakes his PhD. At the end of that time the researcher knows that the prospect of a job relevant to his PhD training is quite small because of the difficulties of funding. That discrepancy in salaries between research and industry is now so great, and the incentives for staying in university posts are so diminished, that it is no wonder that many are now looking across the Atlantic and, increasingly, to Europe for their future.
There are problems in the newly-constructed National Health Service. If we look at the situation of the purchasers and providers, the establishment of health trusts with strong commercial interests creates a possibility of conflict between the costs of immediate health service provision and the equally important need for facilities for clinical research. It would be disastrous if trusts started to charge more than
1278
justifiable overheads to those carrying out research, particularly if that research is being carried out by charitable bodies in health service properties.
How can we improve the situation? Much Alzheimer's disease research in this country is paid for by medical charities rather than by universities or the Medical Research Council. More resources are required and the universities should be dissuaded from charging charities the overhead costs which they currently demand from industry. Industry may make a profit in the long term but charities are not in the marketplace to make a profit. I should like to see the establishment of designated Alzheimer's disease research centres in different parts of the country. Certainly the problem demands that. A modest increase in resources could be used to establish regional research centres; for example, in Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge, Newcastle and London.
The problems which many of those researchers face are considerable. I take the example of Bristol. There is a team of 18 people with a spectrum of interests ranging from clinical research to the use of the techniques of molecular technology applied to the development of new therapeutic avenues. Fourteen of those people are employed on a temporary basis. Therefore, there is always the temptation for them to look elsewhere for permanent jobs. The accommodation is inadequate. One person is based in a kitchen of a Portakabin. The equipment is basic and much needed modern technology is simply not available because of the shortage of resources. In one laboratory seven research workers have to share an office space meant for two. That is almost as bad as the way in which some of us have to share office space in the House of Lords. Perhaps that is an exaggeration.
Finally, I am certain that we need greater Department of Health commitment to the problems of those with dementia. Much useful research could be undertaken if health authorities and trusts were charged with assessing the needs of those in the community suffering from dementia and with providing the resources to evaluate the most effective way of linking together the efforts of the National Health Service, the social services and the voluntary and private sectors. It is not just funding which is needed but also commitment and leadership from the centre.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I join in the thanks and congratulations offered by many of your Lordships to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for initiating this debate. I join also in the warm and totally well justified congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on his quite superb and moving maiden speech. Having spoken to the Norwich Medico Chirurgical Society in the past, I echo his admiration for that organisation.
I apologise to your Lordships, to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, and to the Minister for the fact that I may not be able to stay until the end of the debate because some weeks ago, before I knew of the debate,

1279
I agreed to speak to an all-party parliamentary group on complementary medicine at 5 p.m. elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster.
In this country we have a most notable record in medical research in our universities and our National Health Service hospitals. Much of that has been based upon developments in basic science, not least in recent years upon new techniques of imaging, molecular biology, immunology, pharmacology, and many more. It has been justly said that today's discoveries in basic medical science bring tomorrow's practical developments in patient care.
Many of the most crucial contributions towards such research come from consultants in our National Health Service who work in an increasingly close partnership with scientists in hospitals, in MRC units, in units funded by our charities and foundations, and in partnership with the clinical academic staff in our universities. They do so to such an extent that in many medical schools and their associated hospitals, clinical and academic staff who see and treat patients and consultants who teach, provide services which are virtually indistinguishable in relation not only to patient care but to teaching and research. They do so under the long hallowed "knock for knock" agreement between universities and hospitals—one of the cornerstones of work in research in this country.
Some of the finest research has come from our NHS hospitals and those who work in them. It is important to make the point also that, contrary to popular view, much of the work funded by the Medical Research Council is not basic laboratory research but is clinical research. I can only quote, for example, the extraordinarily competent trial of chiropractic versus outpatient hospital treatment in the management of low back pain and the more recent trial demonstrating the benefits of surgery on the carotid artery in the prevention of stroke. I could quote many more.
Some of the major developments come not just from our universities, MRC units and hospitals, but also—as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said—from our pharmaceutical industry which, in a previous debate, I called the jewel in Britain's industrial crown. Those developments are extraordinarily expensive. For example, the drug erythropoetin, which has been shown to be a rapid and effective means of controlling the anaemia of chronic renal failure, is enormously expensive. The treatment of migraine now made possible by the drug sumatriptan as a treatment for acute attacks is immensely costly. It was developed by basic research by Glaxo, Britain's leading industrial company, but it costs £20 for each injection.
We are now seeing tremendous developments in gene identification leading to major new progress in preventive medicine. I have spoken in your Lordships' House about the discoveries emanating from the isolation and characterisation of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene some years ago, not least in antenatal diagnosis but also in relation to the benefits of embryo research. Only two weeks ago from Charing Cross Hospital and in the Welsh National School of Medicine reports came that the gene responsible for another form of muscular dystrophy, adult myotonic dystrophy, has been isolated and
1280
characterised. That will unquestionably bring major benefit to the families of those patients, not only in prevention but in leading us closer to the prospect of gene therapy.
In saying something about gene therapy perhaps I can welcome the Clothier Report recently published by the Department of Health which gives us a lead in that direction and which will be helped enormously by the establishment of the supervisory committee which the Department of Health proposes to establish. In my view there is no doubt that gene therapy is becoming a real prospect as a means of treating effectively inherited disease. I venture to suggest that within the next 10 years in many of our worst and most crippling inherited diseases it will become a reality.
Those developments are not cheap and I ask whether society, whether government of any political party will swallow and accept the inevitable financial consequences. There are many clouds on the horizon. Are we to face explicit rationing of health care and of these new developments, as in Oregon, or is it to be implicit as it is inevitably in certain circumstances at the present time? I have spoken before about what I believe to be the extraordinarily short-sighted decision to remove the research infrastructure money from our universities and to hand it over to the research councils. I understand the reasons, but believe that it is a misguided decision which will be reversed in the same way as the Rothschild decision some years ago to take money from the Medical Research Council and hand it over to government departments had to be reversed. I hope that this will similarly be reversed. I learnt only two weeks ago that in the University of Oxford two of the brightest and most distinguished research departments are being faced with cuts. One will suffer a cut of £41,000 in the budget which provides that infrastructure of staff, secretaries and technicians so crucial to their research programme, and the other with a cut of £113,000 because of that decision.
In the National Health Service we have SIFTR—the service increment for teaching and research. That is part of a dual support system which enables research to be carried out in our NHS hospitals. Is it adequate? The costings of various procedures in some of our teaching hospitals suggest that the adequacy of that component is in doubt. Perhaps I may echo also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that if the removal of the research infrastructure money from our universities results in the universities being compelled to charge charities overheads on research grants, it will have a devastating effect on the money hard-earned by many of those bodies throughout the United Kingdom.
My final point relates to staffing. I speak as president of the World Federation of Neurology. We had a symposium at the Pan European Congress in December, talking about the American Congress's decision to call the 1990s, "The decade of the Brain". It discussed the establishment of consultants in neurology throughout the world—10,100 accredited neurologists in the United States, 4,500 in Japan, 1,100 in Germany, 179 in the United Kingdom and only Ireland, with six, fares worse in the developed

1281
world as matters stand at the moment. It is therefore not surprising that neurologists find it difficult, in the face of the load of patient care that they inevitably carry, to carry out the research of which many are capable.
I trust that the Government's programme of expanding the consultant establishment in this and in many other disciplines—so crucial to the future of medical research in our hospitals—is something that will gather pace. We could double the number of consultants, inevitably reducing in consequence outpatient waiting times to see them, bearing in mind the numbers of patients they are required to see at the moment. I am a passionate believer in the National Health Service. It has the potential to contribute in an extraordinarily effective way to future research leading to major developments in patient care in this country. But it is something that will need increasing attention not least in a financial sense.
4.17 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, as a layman perhaps I may add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for initiating this debate to which such distinction has been added by the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunter and Lord Rea, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned the need to address the needs of the patient. The point I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention is a simple and I hope a brief one. It concerns the necessity to strike the right balance between the centres of excellence in research and those parts of the country where the burden of disease is greatest.
The largest centres of excellence may be said to be London, Oxford, Cambridge and in Scotland. In the case of England alone—I address these remarks only to England—it is presumably an accidental but interesting fact that the regions covering those centres —namely, the four Thames regions, Oxford and East Anglia—accounted for six out of the eight regions with the lowest mortality rates (and the three lowest overall) for persons under the age of 75 in the period 1985 to 1989. The six lying at the other end of the scale were the six northernmost regions of England.
If your Lordships will bear with me, I have one more significant statistic. In 1989–90, the latest year for which figures are available, the four Thames regions, Oxford and East Anglia accounted for 39 per cent. of the population but received 77 per cent. of the external medical research moneys administered by the universities. The remaining eight, including those with the highest mortality rates—namely, the West Midlands, Trent, Mersey, Yorkshire, the North and the North West—with 61 per cent. of the population received only 23 per cent. of the external medical moneys.
I have to declare an interest in that as a special trustee of the Hammersmith Hospital I have a connection with the Royal Postgraduate Medical School which is well and truly in what one might call the better endowed group. Nevertheless, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues in the
1282
Department of Education and Science will consider that there may be a case for making available a greater share of the research budget to those high quality centres of medicine in the Midlands and in the North of England which have the advantage in medical terms of lying in the heartlands of those parts of the country where the burden of disease and relatively high mortality are greatest.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Hunter for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vital subject, and I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his maiden speech. I for one have an ethical dilemma as to whether I should be in this House this afternoon or over the road in Church House with the General Synod discussing the care of the mentally ill. I am so glad that I chose to be here and to hear such a distinguished address with such sensitive, ethical and theological insights.
Great progress has been made in a relatively short time since the Select Committee on Science and Technology reported on priorities in medical research. The appointment of a director of research and development has given us a basis for great progress. I believe that I can do no better than quote what he said at the beginning of his Francis Fraser lecture to the Royal College of Physicians in which he reported the state that he found. He said:
"Over four decades the National Health Service (NHS) has responded to a huge range of innovations. Some have been durable, others have been transient; some have been evaluated but many have not. Often new developments have been superimposed on existing practice, creating a kind of medical archaeology where the remnants of earlier practices are discernible among the newer acquisitions".
He said:
"the best use of human and other resources, and the contribution of medical interventions to the health status of individuals and the population",
needs to be studied. He continued:
"The challenge now is to introduce a sensible mechanism for handling within the NHS the output of basic and applied research and to apply research methods to examine the content and delivery of health care".
I admire the speed with which the director has set up a strategy for developing research and development in the National Health Service, first, with the central research and development committee and the infrastructure at regional level. He is right in his analysis that there is need for a whole range of types of research, from the pure or academic research to applied research, development and evaluation research.
My purpose in participating in the debate is to attempt to underline that the NHS is a very large-scale organisation in which all kinds of professional practice, function and occupations have to be melded together for the care of the patient. Additionally, we have to look at the use of buildings, their design, the use of equipment and high technology. All these aspects need to be researched and developed in the interests of the National Health Service.
So research and development in the National Health Service cannot be limited to the medical function. Great emphasis has been placed on the

1283
importance of that aspect this afternoon, and that is right and proper. But there are many other factors involved in the National Health Service. Perhaps I can illustrate that best by reference to the need for research and development in my own profession of nursing. In doing so I shall make the case for other professions in the National Health Service such as physiotherapy and clinical psychology.
It is plain that nursing gives 90 per cent. of the care in the National Health Service. Nurses represent 50.9 per cent. of the National Health Service workforce and 45 per cent. of the wages bill. I believe it follows that the effectiveness of nursing intervention and the efficiency and effectiveness of the nursing service profoundly affect the total performance of the National Health Service.
But nursing has come late to the research scene. Some of the first pieces of clinical research were sponsored by the then Ministry of Health in the mid-1960s. Although there has been generous funding by the Department of Health and other funding sources for the past 25 years, there has been relatively little basic work which can inform nursing practice authoritatively. Therefore, I look at the way in which we practise nursing. For the most part, it is born of tradition or perhaps unsystemised experience on the part of ward sisters. All that, as in many other professions in medicine, needs to be subjected to analysis and research.
Fortunately, a strategy for nursing research and development is now evolving which should complement and be part of the strategy for research and development in the National Health Service. In 1990 the Secretary of State for Health endorsed the report on a strategy for nursing which indicated that research was an integral part of all the target areas in nursing—in clinical practice, manpower, education, leadership and management. The Advisory Committee on Nursing Research took the matter further, and, again under the aegis of the chief nursing officer, a multi-disciplinary group gathered at Wonersh last year to develop a strategy for nursing research.
In its report the group draws attention to the context in which a strategy for nursing research is being developed; that is, the new organisation of the NHS and the implications of the purchaser-provider approach. The research is taking place in the context of the national research and development strategy for the NHS and of rapid development in research into matters of audit. It is also taking place in the context of reforms in nursing education and Project 2000 and in the context of the regional structure and its effect on generating priorities.
At the Wonersh seminar we drew attention to the fact that research was needed over the whole continuum, from basic to theoretical research in nursing. We needed to look at application, development and dissemination of research results. We recognised that a wide range of methodologies would be required. Above all, we looked at the importance of collaborative and multi-disciplinary research. It was seen that the purchaser-provider approach to health service delivery was an opportunity for us to look at outcome measures in far more
1284
detail so that the expected standards of nursing care could be stated. The development of standards for contracting for nursing care and the need to update and educate staff now become a managerial imperative, and research has to contribute to that. So I look forward with confidence to improvements in research and development in that area of the health service.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in offering my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, for providing us with the opportunity to have this worthwhile debate I also congratulate him on his speech. It was somewhat poignant and realistic when he mentioned that research one day—I think that is what he meant—might even cure cancer, Parkinson's disease and all of the terrible ailments which still exist and which perturb us greatly.
I hope the Minister will be able to answer a point that I want to make immediately. When changes take place in the National Health Service in research, and so on, I hope that some endeavour will be made to inform the general public of what is happening so that they can have confidence in those changes. It is very difficult for people to realise that at one time there was not even an organised ambulance corps. That has developed and improved over the years until in this country it is first class. No longer are drivers merely drivers; they can do all sorts of wonderful things. But some people resent it when a driver wants to help while getting them into the ambulance on the grounds that because he is not a doctor he does not know what he is doing. In fact, as the General Secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees said some time ago—as did a noble Lord from the Benches opposite—an ambulance driver can be very useful in helping doctors and surgeons. Therefore, I hope that finance will be a priority for research and development in our NHS because in the end it will pay for itself.
I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. His speech on ethics was very important. It took me back to the days when, in the Gallery of this place as a young soldier, I listened to another great Christian—a somewhat fiery Baptist Welshman—who through all his life maintained the ethic that to make money out of disease and suffering is devoid of any ethics whatever, let alone the Christian ethic. Nye Bevan was right then and he is absolutely right today.
I ask the Minister to realise that most people who work in the National Health Service appreciate the fact that ever since the inception of the NHS this country has been in the forefront of all forms of research and development. In world history it is amazing what research and development has achieved, despite it being somewhat haphazard. However, it did not become properly organised until we had our NHS; and recent Government endeavours have been well worthy in this respect.
The World Health Organisation has underlined that the philosophy of improving health with broad strategies for improvement are vital. Therefore, I believe that with political support emphasising the

1285
role of specialist education—that is important—we can improve on the research in which we already lead most other countries. I believe that this is not merely a matter of research and development. The results of research and development must be made available to all our people. The development of the National Health Service—it has been a great development —in British social history is the culmination of a great ideal; it endeavours to be comprehensive and wholly available to all people at all times. That is the ethic that we have to maintain with our research and development.
Referring again to ambulance drivers and similar workers research and development in medical engineering and medical mechanical devices is still needed. It is very important to have the right kind of equipment to move a person, who needs to be moved gently, from one floor to another, especially if a lift is unavailable. All these aspects are very important to our health service.
The importance of public health with preventive programmes, including attack on poverty, poor housing and industrial dangers, must be looked at. I come from a part of our country where it was quite normal to hear someone say, "Poor old soul, he died. He was only 48, you know, but he had the dust so early". A coal miner who had worked for about 12 or 15 years had died because the dust from the coal underground where he was working killed him. There may be other things knocking about which are an industrial danger. I know that the Minister will accept that we must have some form of research and development into occupations which are dangerous and which create great hazards.
There is a need for change and restructure to prove the efficiency and availability of the NHS. The General Medical Services Committee produced a valuable strategy paper called Building your own Future. The paper covers a vital aspect of the NHS and its relationship to the community as a whole. That document, coming from a great organisation, I feel sure will have the attention of the department. The Government responded to the House of Lords Select Committee very well and said that the NHS needed coherent research and development. That was a good response from the Government. I ask the Minister to see that they continue with that approach to R&D.
The NHS needs results and resources. It still needs vital skilled manpower. If we are to have research and development and create wonderful new machines and wonderful ways of doing this, that, and the other, then we have to make sure that we provide the training for those who operate the results of R&D so that they do so in an efficient manner. That is what I meant when I spoke in this House recently on the valuable contribution that can be made by all the staff associations like the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the British Medical Association and those of British nurses. All those organisations can contribute by saying what they require, which the brains of the researchers can do their best to provide. That calls for great teamwork between the intelligentsia of research and development. They in turn must
1286
listen to the doctors, consultants, nurses, and so on, as to their requirements. That will help us enormously. Doctors sometimes find it difficult to keep up with R&D. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind. I think that the Government should be a little more generous towards GPs with post-graduate expenses and to all other staff who are temporarily taken out of their jobs to study the possibilities of better R&D.
This debate is of vital importance to all aspects of our nation's endeavours: to industry, commerce, defence and education. Research and development in the NHS—possibly not in our lifetime—can erase much suffering and disease. I believe that R&D in the NHS will be good for our children and for our future.
I should like to conclude with one point. It was this nation that created this great National Health Service, which became the envy of the world and which I am pleased to say is now being copied by other countries and has resulted in an interchange of ideas between our country, America, parts of the Commonwealth and parts of Europe. That could never have happened without the National Health Service. My ultimate plea is that in doing all these things I hope that we can also provide help to the suffering and deprived humanity in the third world. In this country we are well on our way to a very good society in regard to health but the third world has not yet got to first base. Perhaps through our endeavours in research and development we can contribute to the alleviation of the suffering and the awful anxieties and worries of the third world.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I too should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hunter for initiating this fascinating debate which has ranged all over the world. I should also like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich on his superb maiden speech. Of course, the Cambridge University Medical School falls in the neighbouring diocese. Like my noble friend Lord Walton, I have also had the privilege of addressing the Norwich Medico Chirurgical Society. I guess that it is a sign of my Alzheimer's disease that I cannot actually remember receiving any wine from the society 20 years ago. However, that may be the fault of my memory.
I should also like to tell the right reverend Prelate that in most ethical committees the presence of a layman is demanded. In Cambridge we have been greatly helped by lay members. Indeed, there is a close association between the clinical school and the religious people who attend the Addenbrooke's Hospital. I hope that we shall not get into serious situations in that connection because it is very important. In fact, I am known among some of the medical students as the man who believes that we need to go back into history to the time when religion and medicine walked arm in arm down the corridors of hospitals.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunter for tabling the Motion at this time. I hope that it is not inappropriate if I say how good it was to see Professor Michael Peckham in his proverbial bow tie earlier today. I am sure that he will read all our messages in Hansard. I know that we all wish him well in his vitally

1287
important task. We thank the department for setting up such an arrangement. It is marvellous to realise, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said, that he is beginning to build a pan-national framework of research and development committees.
I feel that I should remind your Lordships where all the research and development goes and mention one or two of the problems about which some of the people in this great chain are worrying. Of course much of the work must take place in universities. We are very proud of our work in Cambridge. Indeed, one might argue that medical research began in Key's College when a man called William Harvey, by doing some remarkable biological experiments, discovered how blood was circulated. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, made the wonderful point that we have maintained a world leadership in such matters.
Only yesterday I visited William Harvey's hospital, St. Bartholomew's. I listened to people talking about research of the cells which actually envelop the circulating blood—the so-called endothelium. Is it not extraordinary that those same men, and those in other parts of the world, have been able to show that a very simple gas—namely nitric oxide—is probably the gas which dilates the blood vessels when they need to dilate. It is opening up an enormous amount of very important research and may lead to the development of new kinds of medicine for dilating blood vessels after people have suffered coronaries.
Of course there are problems in the universities which I should not conceal from your Lordships. Those concerned are worried that their medical teaching hospital departments may suffer from the new form of funding on a per capita basis. I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about the importance of ensuring that funds for research and development get through to the apparently less privileged parts of the country.
It has been pointed out that research councils are in difficulties. They have coming towards them now this wonderful tide of brilliant young people who are really experiencing difficulties in prosecuting their careers. I do not know how we can solve the problem because such young people have an almost exponential growth of brilliant new ideas which need developing. Perhaps we must teach them to walk barefooted and to live on bread and water—they will certainly need all their spare money to buy the necessary apparatus—or, alternatively, perhaps they will have to learn to share their apparatus in order to manage.
The research work that I observed yesterday at St. Bartholomew's is multiplying further investigations. No one can say which of those investigations will hit the jackpot. That is one of the big problems about research. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, when saying farewell as president of the Royal Society, made a great and wonderful remark which I frequently quote to students. I shall repeat it in my Scottish accent. He said, "Aye, there is only one thing that you can be sure of in research and that is that the results will surprise you". That factor is very important for the reputation of the research councils. I agree with my noble friend Lord Walton about the pharmaceutical industry being the jewel in our industrial crown. The work it carries
1288
out in research and development in this field is a great credit to the scientists who undertake the work and to the people who offer the leadership.
We should also remember the very important interactions which are essential in research and development. I shall deal presently with my personal concern and commitment for health promotion. That is not a very topical topic in some quarters; but it seems to me to be quite important. It will be greatly helped by the research into the genetic code —the human geno research. If we are to identify who is really at risk from smoking, it will probably come from that kind of approach. Then, as the professor, I shall not have to wonder how I can answer the student who says to the assembled company, "Well, Prof, it is all very well you saying don't smoke, but my grandfather smoked heavily until he was 102 and then died under a bus". I hope that the geno boys will be able to tell us who is the man who will die under the bus.
I want noble Lords to know that in The Patient's Charter there are two lovely quotations. The first says that the patient should be,
"guaranteed admission for treatment no later than two years,"
after the day that he or she sees the hospital doctor. We all know that there is terrible pressure on the National Health Service. The second quotation is to be found on page 21. It points out to the patient that he or she will be given help and taught,
"how to maintain and improve your own health".
That seems to me to be a great reason for encouraging health promotion.
I worked in health education for a long time. However, I am afraid that the lessons tend to be dull. We need to enliven them: research can enliven them. We have certain ways of achieving a great leap forward in health promotion. The first example that comes to my mind is the terrible tragedy which took place at King's Cross tube station where many people died. The Underground authorities were immediately given the opportunity to impose a "No smoking" ban on the Tube. It is part of a most wonderful sea change, a level of consciousness change, in our country about the risks of smoking.
Of course, it must be said that obesity, which was a very dull subject 20 years ago, was greatly helped by a French company. It realised that the subject of obesity could be most interesting for general practitioners if they received new research information about it which would keep them, in their discussions with their fat patients, a little ahead on the information front. Those are areas where I believe that health promotion research could provide assistance to help people maintain their own health and thus reduce the pressure on the health service. That will become increasingly important as there are so many elderly people today.
I have one last point to make. I apologise to the House for having exceeded my time. I cannot escape the conclusion that health promotion is all pervasive in education, in transport, in health and in food. I hope that the Secretary of State will be given the

1289
authority to form a kind of health Cabinet to ensure that the various departments work together in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for his maiden speech and congratulating him on it. I congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, on enabling us to have this brief debate on a subject of enormous importance.
I should like to concentrate on the issue of research and development. The national health system benefits from the research that is carried out by alternative and complementary medical colleges, such as those of the chiropractors and osteopaths among other alternative medical groups. The results of chiropractic research into the importance of the spine as a channel of fluids and on the nervous system are of enormous help to people who are attempting to diagnose the cause of cot-deaths. My noble friend Lord Walton, among others, has promoted National Health Service recognition of such alternative medical groups. As was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, collaborative research is essential if the population as a whole is to benefit from the National Health Service.
Finally, I wish to back my noble friend Lord Walton in promoting further funds for neurosurgery and neurology as a whole. Without British neurosurgeons and neurologists, I would not have the three of my 1 million nerves that go from my optical cerebrum to my two retina. I thoroughly support the Motion.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like all speakers, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, for tabling this Motion and giving us a chance to debate this important subject. There have been many excellent speeches but none better than the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who gave us a timely reminder of the importance of ethics in our considerations of medical research. He referred to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. All of us who participated in debates on that Bill agree with everything that he said about the importance of ethics in our consideration of medical research.
If health research is to be successful, it must have the three elements of innovation, prevention and evaluation. Innovation is necessary to cure diseases, to save people's lives and to improve the quality of life. Prevention is necessary to find out what makes people stay healthy. Evaluation is the measurement of the effectiveness of the treatment and of changes in life-style.
I am sure that we would all agree that research and development must be seen as part of an overall health strategy. The prime function of the health service is to help people to stay healthy and, if that fails, to cure them as quickly and as effectively as possible.
I should like to raise a particular point with the Minister on the question of innovation. An important part of innovation is to protect the effective patent life
1290
of new medicines. Paragraph 6.8 of the Third Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled Priorities in Medical Research, which has already been referred to, states:
"The Government should ensure that the patent protection available to the pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom in practice affords levels of protection similar to that afforded by the patent laws in major competing countries, both in Europe and in the United States and Japan".
Paragraph 2.3 of the Government's response to that report states:
"further progress in protection of pharmaceutical patents would require collective action by a number of European countries".
The House will be interested to know the latest state of play on that, whether the Government have been able to make any progress and the influence of the European Community's draft directive on dispensing which is to be effective from January 1994.
Only the other day I was discussing the environment for research and development in this country with the directors of a drug company that is a subsidiary of a major international group. They were not wholly optimistic, partly because of the pressures on the science base but also because of the problem of the protection of patent life and the knock-on effect on research and development.
Turning to prevention, my party is proposing a health initiative with specific targets and the Government have issued their health promotion White Paper. A number of your Lordships have referred to the importance of the environment not only in relation to research and development but in relation also to tobacco advertising, random breath testing and nutritional guidelines for school meals. One problem that we have hardly addressed is the effect of poverty on health and the differences in health that are due to inequalities, such as the difference in the incidence of disease between the social classes.
We must balance health education with treatment. There is now a shift towards providing much more treatment at the primary care level. In considering evaluation, the new developments in medical technology offer dramatic improvements in patient care. I refer, for example, to lithotriptors which are used to smash gallstones; to laser and fibre-optic technology; to the move from intrusive to key-hole surgery and the move towards day surgery. All those changes need to be evaluated and monitored. Indeed, concern has already been expressed about the need for after-care with day surgery. That is research and development at the practical level. The Opposition believe that, in terms of evaluation, there should be a freedom-to-publish clause in the contracts of Department of Health researchers. Indeed, my party is committed to a freedom of information Act. It would be interesting if the Minister could comment on that recommendation and on the concept of a freedom-topublish clause.
The excellent Priorities in Medical Research report included powerful arguments that reveal just what needs to be done if we are to meet the research and development needs of the health service. However, several doctors who have been in touch with me have expressed concern that, with all the current changes in

1291
the health service, the needs of research and development may well be squeezed out at the most basic level. I should like to quote from a letter that has been sent to me by a leading cardiologist which states:
"On a personal note, one thing which saddens me is that the increased amount of administrative work that I am having to do (I think about 10 to 12 hours a week) means that I have had to give up any attempts at research work. I have 6 'papers' which 1 could and should be writing, either alone or with junior colleagues, and I see no prospect of doing anything about them before May next year when I expect that I shall take early retirement at the age of 60".
That is not the best use of scarce research resources.
The department has produced good documents on research and on health in the regions. Strong emphasis needs to be placed on the role of the regions in research and development. Are the Government entirely satisfied that there will not be a dissipation of the research effort away from our centres of excellence, given this shift towards regional research and development? What evaluation is taking place to ensure that the research effort is not dissipated away from our well-known centres of excellence which sometimes have a world reputation?
Turning to development, I should like to touch on a subject which has not yet been discussed. I refer to community care because that is part of our health service. I have searched all the various documents that relate to research and development but I cannot find any reference to research and development into community care. The Motion refers to "development" as well as to "research", and that includes training. The implementation of the community care plans in April 1993 is a topical subject, so perhaps I may ask the Minister what research is being carried out into that area. What research is planned, and who is responsible for it?
As I have said, development can include training. Indeed, the best R&D in the world is of little help if there are no properly trained people to put it into effect. As I mentioned this to the Minister before the debate, may I ask her now whether the Government are satisfied with the current efforts in terms of research and development and training for community care in both the private and the public sectors? What are the training arrangements? Where does the ultimate responsibility lie for R&D and for training standards? Does the director of R&D in the health service have any responsibility in this area?
I have been asked by several organisations about the national vocational qualifications—the NVQs—in social care and health care. What is the research base for the development of and training in community care? What use is made of NVQs in that area, and are they to be expanded? I have heard only recently that the Audit Commission is to produce three reports on community care. Which areas of community care will be covered by those reports, and will they deal with research and development?
Also on the subject of care, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, mentioned nursing. An excellent report for the Royal College of Nursing was undertaken by the Institute of Manpower Studies. It was a first-rate analysis of the problems facing the RCN. There is the problem, of which we are all aware, that, while the workload has increased as broadly
1292
measured by the number of patients treated and by the higher average dependency level of those patients, the number of nursing staff employed in the NHS (whole-time equivalent) has remained comparatively static, with little real increase since the early 1980s. An increased workload, with static staffing means an increase in stress and an increased dependence upon support workers in nursing. It appears that not much work has been done on the cost-benefit ratio for nursing care, the costing methodologies, the organisation of nursing, skill mix, skill substitution and specific nursing intervention.
The report concludes:
"This review has revealed that much research based work has been undertaken to monitor and measure the 'value' of nursing. However, the work is fragmented and mainly rooted in a US context. Given the current attention to cost containment in UK healthcare, it is evident that further research is required which develops common methodologies and links costs to outcome in order to ensure that cost effectiveness is not overlooked in the drive for cost savings".
I should be interested to hear the Minister comment upon that.
That quotation mentions the outcome of treatment. We now have a great deal of information about throughput and we have some information about costs. The health service debate has become a battle of statistics about waiting lists, the number of patients treated, the utilisation of beds and so forth. All that says little about the outcome of treatment—to use the jargon, the cost/benefit ratio. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred to the use of quality adjusted life years. He thought that that was the wrong approach. I agree with him, because that approach depends upon costing procedures and a knowledge of costs.
I have spent all my working life in a specialised area of management accounting. All cost accounting is a mixture of convention, heroic assumption and arbitrary allocation. That is all right when one is costing a widget. But I agree with the noble Lord about the danger of' using the concept of quality adjusted life years when someone's life depends upon it. He remarked about consensus management. We can all agree with that. I wonder how we are now to practise consensus management with the commercial confidentiality of the purchaser-provider contracts, the confidentiality of the business plans and so forth and the denial of freedom of speech for the people involved who are not allowed to comment upon them. How are we to build up consensus management in that area?
As I have said, we have had an excellent debate. As is often the way with these debates, we have asked many more questions than we have answered. We are looking forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I hope that she will be able to agree with all noble Lords on the vital importance of research and development if the health service is to perform the tasks that the nation demands of it.
5.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, and to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, for giving me the

1293
opportunity to give what is, in effect, a first year's report on developments in the important area of research and development in the NHS. As the director, Professor Peckham, has been very vigorous, a great deal has been achieved. The debate has also given us the opportunity to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, something about his party's plans in this area. I shall read, study and evaluate his comments with great interest.
I first wish to add my congratulations and thanks to the right reverend Prelate on hitting the right note with his maiden speech. Ethical considerations add an important dimension to all that we have been discussing. He will be pleased to know that we have pre-empted some of the issues he raised by issuing new guidance to local research ethics committees.
I shall preface my remarks about some of the main issues raised in the debate by referring to some good news. First, the health departments have just reached agreement with the Medical Research Council at working level on a new five-year concordat governing co-operation between those major government funders of medical research. The agreement awaits only formal ratification. The MRC has been very responsive to the need to take greater account of health problems of concern to health departments and the NHS, without losing sight of scientific opportunity. Agreement was reached cordially and without major disagreement. This augurs well for the success of the concordat.
Secondly, we promised in our response to your Lordships' report Priorities in Medical Research that we would take steps to enhance the exchange of information with other research funders. In addition to normal working contacts, we have promoted and encouraged the creation of research liaison committees that bring together funders in particular areas, building on the experience of the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research. One has started work on cardiovascular disease and stroke, and another is being set up on respiratory disease. We shall carefully consider the creation of others as the need arises.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, was the first of your Lordships to ask about funding. In announcing the R&D strategy for the NHS in April last year, we made a commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spending on R&D to 1.5 per cent. over five years. We have started to move towards that increased investment by including £7 million of "tasked" money in regional health authorities' allocations for the coming year. That is designed particularly to enable them to develop the systems and structures which they will need in order to implement the strategy. That is just a beginning.
Something over £1.5 billion is spent each year on health R&D from all sources. The Government spend over £500 million currently, and the NHS spends over £225 million. That amounts to about 1 per cent. of total NHS spend. The Government intend to raise that figure, as I have said, to 1.5 per cent. over five years.
1294
The main aim of the strategy is to ensure that the content and delivery of care in the NHS are based on high quality research relevant to improving the health of the nation. We intend to see R&D become an integral part of health care so that clinicians, managers and other staff find it natural to rely upon the results of R&D in their day-to-day decision making and longer-term strategic planning. That is an ambitious goal and will take some time to achieve. Looking back on the past year, I am confident that we have laid firm foundations upon which to build. Those foundations include the establishment of a Central Research and Development Committee, to which reference has already been made. It is chaired by Professor Peckham, and has the prime task of advising on priorities of the NHS R&D programme and establishing a framework for the development of regional R&D plans.
The CRDC brings together senior NHS managers, leading researchers from the universities—so preserving the contact with centres of excellence about which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked—and from elsewhere, including lay members, and others with experience in industry. The CRDC has held two successful meetings, and will advise us on areas in which R&D will be of value to the National Health Service. It will distinguish between areas of national priority which merit central National Health Service funding, a larger number of areas of national importance on which National Health Service R&D should focus and health service needs which might be drawn to the attention of other funders, such as the Medical Research Council. This would be reflected in the proceedings of the new concordat.
Identifying a suitable list of priorities from among the many possible areas of health-related R&D, as your Lordships' contributions this afternoon have emphasised, presents a mammoth task and one as regards which none of us, I am sure, would envy the CRDC. I believe that it will contribute to the consensus rationing to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, referred. One of the first principles that the central committee has established is that its business should be conducted as openly as possible. CRDC papers are already circulated widely throughout the National Health Service and the research world. The CRDC's business programme will include consultation and open discussion of its work. I feel sure that this approach will be welcomed. Indeed, it is a prerequisite of sound priority setting.
On the subject of the freedom to publish research, within the National Health Service research and development programme—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—researchers will be encouraged to publish research findings and there will be emphasis on the free sharing of the results of individual projects.
The CRDC will explore four broad areas when considering NHS R&D priorities. These are: disease-related work; organisation and management of services, including operational research; client groups, including disabled people—I can reassure my noble friend Lord Holderness on that point—and last but far from least, consumer groups. We have already started one disease-related work programme with a

1295
mental health research advisory group which is working to identify priorities in the field. It will report to the CRDC within the next two months. This will cover the subject of Alzheimer's disease, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, specifically drew our attention.
Other reviews are planned for later in the year, including one in the area covered by the organisation and management of services, and a review of research needs in the field of cardiovascular disease.
An advisory group on health technology assessment has already produced a report for consideration and doubtless that, too, will cover some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy.
The second key element of the strategy is the devolution of most of the management of R&D to regional health authorities. We have asked each regional health authority to identify a member responsible for R&D. We have also asked RHAs to appoint regional directors of research and development early in the coming financial year. Four regional directors have already been appointed. The other 10 are well on the way to appointment and it is extremely gratifying that these research and development posts are attracting high calibre appointees, strengthening the links with centres of excellence.
Each regional authority has also been asked to appoint a multi-disciplinary regional research and development committee early in 1992–93, to advise the region on the content of its R&D plan and on the region's input to the Central Research and Development Committee. It will also ensure the quality of that research and I believe that this approach will go a long way to meet some of the specific anxieties raised in the course of the debate.
For the first time we are asking regions to identify their own research and development priorities. We fully appreciate that this is a new and difficult task and we do not expect them to come up with the perfect regional strategy all at once. However, we expect them to do the best they can and to continue to refine and improve their regional R&D plans year by year. It is essential that they do so if research and development is to fulfil its raison d'etre of serving the needs of the National Health Service.
The research which the RHAs commission will fall into three main categories. First, they will be able to bid for central finance to manage research in areas of national priority identified by the central committee. Regions will develop research programmes in those areas and let contracts to research bodies. Secondly, regional health authorities will use their own funds to let contracts for research in areas of national importance identified by the CRDC.
Thirdly, regions will let contracts for research in areas which they themselves have identified as priorities. These may be matters of local as well as of national concern. They will obviously be concerned about the patterns of health within their own regions and will address them as part of their R&D plans. We intend that they will, however, be free to commission research from those centres within or outside their own region best placed to undertake the highest quality work. I hope that this will reassure my noble
1296
friend Lord Bridgeman. We very much intend that there will be a free flow of information under this strategy so that regions can also use the results of appropriate research and development undertaken elsewhere.
Perhaps I may also refer to the role of the London postgraduate special health authorities in the strategy. They and their associated institutes will continue to be major providers of research and development for the National Health Service. They will be able to hid alongside regions for the management of programmes of centrally-funded R&D, and may undertake R&D on contract. They will also continue to carry out their own R&D activity so that there will be continuity.
SHAs have provided us and the CRDC with position statements of their R&D plans. Each paired special health authority and institute is also jointly nominating a senior member of staff who can fulfil the role of director of research and development for that organisation.
We also see a major role for the regional directors of research and development, with a representative from the special health authority/institute directors of research and development, in working as a group with Professor Peckham to manage a co-ordinated national programme.
We are currently establishing an information systems strategy for research and development. The objective is to ensure that National Health Service resources are deployed to maximum effectiveness. This will be achieved by developing systems which provide comprehensive and up-to-date R&D information on matters of direct relevance to patient care services. This information will be extremely important to many people, including, for example, clinicians and managers involved in placing contracts to purchase services.
I have been encouraged by the positive reactions from the National Health Service to our strategy. Regions in particular have grasped the importance of ensuring that R&D is integrated into the management agenda. We are working with them to help them develop the infrastructure that they will need in order to take on the research and development management task. We held a successful workshop for regions on 4th December, from which many helpful ideas emerged.
Perhaps I may attempt to answer some of the many specific points and in advance I hope that noble Lords will understand if I do not cover them all. The noble Lord, Lord Hunter, questioned the Government's view of the use of quality adjusted life years. I can tell the noble Lord that measures of quality adjusted life years, or QALYs as they are sometimes called, can provide useful information on health outcomes. However, there are concerns about some of the uses to which it has been suggested they might be put. The noble Lord remarked on that. The department is funding a programme of work to develop and evaluate those measures further.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked how our National Health Service reforms are being evaluated. We are learning by experience and we are looking at quality of care, value for money and more

1297
responsiveness to individual patients, for example, through the reduction of waiting times and waiting lists. The first six-months report, which was issued just a few weeks ago, provides a good indication of how well the National Health Service is responding. The noble Lord also asked about research to follow up Department of Health inquiries into health care needs. We have commissioned a range of research to support the new purchasing role of district health authorities. This includes a series of epidemiologically based needs assessments governing topics such as diabetes and a series of bulletins summarising what is known about the effectiveness of interventions for particular conditions.
On the subject of research into the needs of elderly people, I can reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that one of the members of the central committee, Professor Kay-Tee Khaw, is a professor of clinical gerontology with expertise in the interface between basic research and community based epidemiological studies. The elderly are an important client group in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to the adequacy of the service increment for teaching and research (SIFTR). Again, the department is undertaking a review of SIFTR. The steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education and research chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the department is taking a close continuing interest in that. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also asked about the impact of changes in dual support on charities. We have tried to make it clear that dual support transfer is not intended to alter the basis on which charities commission their research in higher education institutes. The Government do not wish to see any reduction in the present level of public funding to underpin research projects sponsored by charities. I know the UFC is currently considering transitional arrangements to avoid any problems.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, spoke about multi-disciplinary research and in particular nursing research. I can reassure her that multi-disciplinary research will be actively promoted within the National Health Service R&D strategy. I understand that two members of the central committee are nurses and a group is now being established to develop a strategy for nursing research which will create a profession which can articulate the need for research, participate in carrying it out, and use research results to change practice. Members of the group will include both members of the central committee who have a nursing background and others with expertise in nursing and midwifery research, social policy and health services research and National Health Service management. It is intended that the strategy will be endorsed by the chief nursing officer, the director of research and development and by the nursing, midwifery and health visitor professions.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, made a number of interesting points and mentioned specifically careers for researchers. In departmental terms, that is a matter for the Department of Education and Science and for the research councils. However, we are asking
1298
the regional health authorities to let us have their views about the provision of researchers as part of their R&D plans.
The matter of training was also referred to, particularly training in community care. The Government recognise the importance of training in improving the quality of social services for older people, children at risk and families caring for dependent relatives. We are providing funds for training. This year, 1992–93, the funds amount to some £56 million. Those funds are intended to ensure that all social services staff are equipped for their new task bearing in mind the terms of the Children Act and the community care aspect of our reforms.
I have perhaps taken a good deal of time to recount the background of the developments of the new system of National Health Service research and development strategy. However, the success of this strategy will lie not in any systems and structures which it engenders but rather in the development of an evaluative culture. In saying that, I echo the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter. We need to encourage managers, clinicians and everyone else concerned to identify the areas in which R&D can help them to deliver a better service. We need to help them to recognise the importance of asking the right questions so that the answers can be really useful to them. We need to ensure National Health Service ownership of the strategy so that more valuable research and development results are translated into action. Ultimately the success of the strategy will lie in the improvement of the health of the population. I am confident that this strategy will achieve those wider aims.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I only have time to express my thanks in three respects. First, I thank the Minister for giving us a remarkable account in a relatively short time. She has encouraged every one of us here, as well as many people in the health service, and also someone who is sitting behind me at the Bar, to get on with this matter. Secondly, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has earned a place in this House as he has established himself as an authority in a special and important field. I am sure everyone in the House would wish to encourage him to keep on advising us and to keep us on course. Thirdly, I thank everyone who has taken part in this interesting debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Defence Equipment
5.29 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on a number of new equipment projects for the Armed Forces. The House will recall that in

1299
my Statement last week on amphibious forces I said that a corner-stone of our policy in developing `smaller but better' armed forces is the enhancement of flexibility and mobility.
"For the Royal Air Force, one of the proven methods of achieving this, demonstrated both during the Falklands conflict and more recently in the liberation of Kuwait, is air-to-air refuelling. It became clear after the Falklands conflict that an increase in the RAF's tanker assets was vital and a programme was set in train to augment and eventually replace the Victor tanker fleet. So far nine VC 10s and six Tristars have been added to the RAF tanker fleet and a further 13 VC10 conversions are now in progress.
"I am now pleased to announce that we have decided to award a contract to British Aerospace to give the remaining five VC10 transport aircraft a tanker capability. The work is expected to be done at BAe's Filton site with significant elements sub-contracted to Flight Refuelling at Hurn.
"The existing programme already provided the RAF with a capability in this area greater than that of any of our European allies. These additional aircraft will give the RAF the reach and flexibility it needs to meet the challenges and uncertainties of the future.
"The effectiveness of air power is determined not only by the performance of the aircraft but also by their ability to defend themselves and suppress enemy air defences in a hostile environment. To these ends, we have decided to order a new defensive aids system for the Tornado F3 air defence variant, combining chaff and flares. Contract negotiations are under way with British Aerospace which, as prime contractor, will be responsible for system integration. The flare dispensers and system control equipment have been designed, and will be supplied, by Vinten Military Systems Ltd. of Bury St. Edmunds.
"Additionally, we intend to order from British Aerospace, subject to the agreement of satisfactory contract terms, a further batch of ALARM missiles to replenish stocks expended during the Gulf War. Among the sub-contractors who will benefit from this order are Marconi Defence Systems, Portsmouth; Lucas Aerospace, Bradford; Irving of Letchworth; and Thorn EMI of Hayes.
"The Gulf war also re-emphasised how essential good communications are to the success of military operations. We have decided to extend the successful Skynet 4 satellite communications programme. The three satellites currently in operation are expected to approach the end of their orbit life by 1997 and a further batch of new satellites will be ordered for launch in that year. This will extend the life of our current communications satellite system into the next century.
"A firm price project definition phase for Skynet 4, Stage 2, will be conducted by the team responsible for the Stage 1 satellites; namely, British Aerospace Space Systems at Stevenage as prime contractor, with Matra Marconi Space at Portsmouth as the major sub-contractor.
1300
"I turn now to helicopters. We intend, subject to the agreement of acceptable contractual terms, to place a contract with Westland to convert the Royal Navy's Lynx Mark 3 helicopter to the more capable Mark 8 standard.
"The core of the Lynx Mark 8 update will be a central tactical system which has been developed by Racal Avionics in Raynes Park. The contract will provide for the conversion of seven airframes to the Mark 8 standard, and the supply of tooling and modification kits to enable conversions of further aircraft to be undertaken by the Royal Navy.
"The House will recall that we have been considering the purchase of additional Sea Kings for the SAR role. I am pleased to announce that we intend to order a further six Sea King helicopters and a Sea King simulator for the Royal Air Force. This will enable us to replace the ageing United Kingdom based Wessex in the search and rescue role with this longer range and generally more capable helicopter. In line with our policy of moving to tauter contractual conditions for non-competitive procurement, the contract with Westland for the helicopters will be subject to prior agreement of an acceptable firm price. Competitive tenders will be invited for the simulator.
"Finally, I can confirm to the House our plans for further trainer aircraft for our successful Harrier force. Subject to the agreement of satisfactory contractual terms with British Aerospace, we intend to purchase 13 new Harrier T10 two-seat trainers for the RAF and to convert five Harrier T4 aircraft to the more capable T8 standard for the Royal Navy.
"The total value of these orders for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy will be some £500 million. These proposals are within our existing defence expenditure plans and provide yet further demonstration of the Government's firm commitment to ensuring that the Armed Forces, although smaller in overall numbers, will be better equipped than ever before".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. It will certainly come as a relief to British Aerospace, which has been going through troubled times recently. In general, we welcome the Statement.
However, I note the sentence in the Statement that the RAF will be given,
"the reach and flexibility it needs to meet the challenges and uncertainties of the future".
What is the Government's assessment of the challenges and uncertainties of the future? It is no good saying that the RAF will have that capability without knowing the Government's view on what those challenges and uncertainties are.
Then we are told:
"The effectiveness of air power is determined not only by the performance of the aircraft but also by their ability to defend themselves and suppress enemy air defences in a hostile environment".
Which enemy do the Government have in mind? On what basis are those calculations made? Has there

1301
been a thorough defence review? If there has not been a thorough defence review should there not be one? We do not believe that Options for Change, which has led to all this, was a thorough defence review.
Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government placing an order for new helicopters or simply making a statement of intent? I should be grateful if the noble Earl would answer that question.
Thirdly, when will Her Majesty's Government order the advanced short-range air-to-air missile? That is a project which will occupy and affect thousands of jobs in both Stevenage and Bristol.
Next, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will elaborate on the satellite programme. Can he confirm whether or not Her Majesty's Government are prepared to allow our military satellites to be launched by the country which submits the lowest tender for launching? If not, who will launch the satellites and under what programme? Can he also confirm that the satellites which are proposed will be independent of the US satellite network? We all know that in both the Falklands and Operation Granby we were heavily dependent on US satellite and AWACS equipment. How far in general will we be dependent on the US? How far does the noble Earl think that this country can launch any operation of a Falklands nature now without the active military rather than merely political support of the US?
Even if there is a defence review—and we do not know what the Government's assessment of the probabilities, uncertainties and future enemies might be—in the noble Earl's mind is there any possibility that we could act independently of the US? If that is not the case—and we must accept the fact that we are not a world power or a world policeman—and we rely on the US, should we not tailor our expenditure to that fact?
Finally I should like to ask the noble Earl a question about the last sentence in the Statement:
"These proposals are within our existing defence expenditure plans".
We have had many debates in your Lordships' House about whether it is proper that the Government should tailor their defence expenditure to the requirements of the Treasury or whether they should tailor their requirements to the defence of the United Kingdom. We are in no doubt that the latter alternative is the right one, but in the many debates we have had we have not been satisfied that that condition has been met.
I should be most grateful if the noble Earl would respond to my questions. In the meantime, I thank him for repeating the Statement. I very much hope that he will not engage in the sort of party political knockabout which took place in another place when the Statement was made.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the proposals appear to arise directly from experience in the Gulf War and the Falklands War. That is good and we welcome it.
I do not feel much happiness about the extension of refuelling capability. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked the Government what it is for; but it is all too plain. Even as things are now, we have a more
1302
powerful refuelling capability than any of our NATO allies. The reason that the Government propose to extend it further is in order to cater for Britain's out-of-area unilateral commitments. If I feel uneasy about that, it is perhaps partly because I have flown in a Buccaneer being refuelled in the air. It was a most unnerving experience.
But mainly my worry is that the Government are settling down to a permanent acceptance of our out-of-area unilateral commitments. On these Benches we believe that that is a wrong policy. We feel that the Foreign Office ought to do far more than it does now to ensure that those commitments are either shared with our allies or negotiated away. In my view, that should be the attitude of the Government.
I shall ask the noble Earl a single question. We are told that the £500 million can be found within the existing budget. What does that mean? Does it mean that the budget with which we were presented in Options for Change was inflated, or have economies been made? What are those economies? I should be grateful if the noble Earl would answer that point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, for welcoming the Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me for the Government's assessment of the challenges and uncertainties that face us over the next few years. That is rather like asking me to be certain about uncertainties. The answer is that we have seen over the past few months the demise of the Warsaw Pact, but we do not know what future developments will take place within the old Soviet Union. We must also be mindful of the potential for instability outside Europe. After all, not so long ago we fought an unexpected war in the Gulf. We must be ready for any eventuality that we and our allies may face across the globe.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. There is one point on which I should like clarification. I did not ask him what the uncertainties were; I asked him what was the Government's assessment of the uncertainties.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I confess that I am baffled by the distinction which the noble Lord has drawn. I apologise for being obtuse. As he well knows—if his party is in office in a few months' time it will have to take the same view as we do constantly—there is a constant reassessment of our capabilities and the situation around the world which our Armed Forces may be called upon to address. We need to be sure that our Armed Forces have the equipment that they need in any area of the world in which they find themselves.
The noble Lord asked me about the helicopters and whether we would be placing an order. We are in the process of negotiating the contracts with Westland with a view to placing the orders. The value of those contracts has not yet been precisely costed but is in the region of £20 million. The Wessex helicopters that are being replaced by Sea Kings will come into service over the next three to four years. We expect the first aircraft to be delivered in 1995. Again, however, those orders are subject to contract.

1303
The noble Lord asked me about short-range air-to-air missiles, which in fact I did not mention in the Statement. An announcement about those missiles will be made in due course. He then went on to ask me about the launch of the satellites and who will launch them. Once the launch date approaches there will be a competition for the contractor. Obviously I cannot comment on the result of that exercise in advance of the competition.
The noble Lord asked me whether our satellites would be independent of the US network. It is fair to say that, when we deploy satellites of that kind, we do so in consultation with our allies. We are often given access to the satellites of our allies. It is a collaborative effort.
The expenditure figures that I have given are within the plans that we had before us last autumn, as foreshadowed in the Autumn Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked specifically about those budgets. That expenditure will fall within the defence budget over the next two to three years between now and the mid-1990s. We have allowed for capital expenditure of that order in our budgeting. Now that we are firming up those plans, we can come to the House and say what we intend to do.
If I have failed to cover any particular points, I shall write to noble Lords. I hope that I have at least covered the main points that were raised.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating the Statement. I am particularly glad that it has been repeated, unlike the one on naval developments which, unhappily, last week for some reason was not repeated in this House.
I am sure that my noble friend appreciates from the questions that have already been put to him the interest that your Lordships' House has in this important matter. It is right that the Statement should be repeated in this Chamber. Perhaps I may also say how much I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he criticised the improvements in the refuelling facilities for the RAF. We live in an immensely uncertain world and one in which trouble may blow up in many places. It is no use shutting our eyes to trouble because it arises some distance away. The Government are doing the proper thing; namely, increasing the refuelling facilities of the RAF so that it can be an effective instrument in the case of trouble which arises at a considerable distance. Most of us will find it encouraging that the Government have emphasised that point with these improvements.
Is my noble friend aware that we are very much encouraged by the care which is now being taken to improve the Royal Air Force and naval aircraft provision? We are hopeful that it is an indication that the Government will not be lulled by people who try to convince themselves that we live in a safe or easy world.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and agree wholeheartedly with his comments. I need hardly say that the qualities that we
1304
all look for in our Armed Forces are flexibility and the capacity to react quickly as well as with professionalism. The refuelling capacity for our aircraft is a key ingredient. There is an uncertain situation around the world. We need to be ready to respond to any emergency which may arise.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the noble Lord emphasised the importance of flexibility which lies behind these orders, but I understand that one of the other principles on which our defence policy is based is the closest possible integration with our allies. If that is to be effective, both operationally and in terms of economic management of the resources available to the alliance in total, it is important that significant renewals of equipment are the best and most sensible renewals for the alliance as a whole. Can the noble Lord assure us that there have been full consultations with our allies and that this very significant new order makes rational sense in terms of the alliance as a whole as well as in terms of our narrower national interest?
Earl Howe: My Lords, yes. I am happy to give the noble Lord those assurances.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. Perhaps I may ask my noble friend two questions. First, to what extent will the cost involved benefit British firms; and to what extent will it be money spent overseas? Secondly, will the further equipment that the armed forces will receive, as he has announced, involve any variation in the manpower proposals in Options for Change?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in terms of who will receive those orders, the benefit will fall almost entirely on the UK industry. There are one or two overseas subcontractors, but by and large it is the UK industry which will benefit.
The announcements that I have made have no implications for manpower.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Earl assure the House that the capital amount of the expenditure involved will be borne out of the public sector borrowing requirement, or is it the Government's intention that it should be borne out of general receipts into revenue?
Earl Howe: My Lords, any element of government expenditure is allowed for out of the receipts that they may have over a period of years, whether they be borrowings or receipts from the general fund. It is part of the defence budget. I can go no further.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, what the noble Earl has said will be received with great satisfaction by a large number of people. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is out of date now. We are living in a world of astonishing uncertainty. There is almost no part of the world with any immediate, clear picture of the future. We do not know which way people will move. Some people wish to divide their countries into a lot of little bits; some want to join huge countries together. No one knows how to do it. That is the position that we are in.

1305
I am glad that money should be spent on aviation. Every war has required new types of aeroplanes. The use of the latest type of aeroplane has in many cases been decisive. Those who do not have such aeroplanes lose their way. It is astonishing to me that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, considers that we have to rely on the United States of America. Do we have to give up our arms and let them provide our defence? That is unlikely to be a sound proposition. The United States will support those who help themselves. If we do not help ourselves, the United States will not consider us for one moment.
The noble Earl's Statement has given great satisfaction to this country. I am delighted to have heard it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that no one has challenged the view—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, we had criticisms earlier———
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, having rectified my seating position on the Benches, I wish to raise a point of order. The rules that we agreed were that during questions on the Statement one intervention should be allowed. If we are worried about the time spent in this regard we ought to adhere to our own rules.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I take the point that is now made from a proper place in the Chamber. However, I understand that it is possible to ask for elucidation of an answer that the Minister has given. I am glad to have the assent evidently of the Leader of the House.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, that is correct. One can rise on a point of elucidation.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl to explain his reply to me about refuelling. Is he aware that no one has suggested that while we hold unilateral out-of-area commitments refuelling extra capacity is necessary? Are the Government now seeking either to share with our allies or to renegotiate those out-of-area commitments, or do they intend to keep them indefinitely? That appears to be the view of the noble Earl's supporters.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that question deserves a considered reply. I do not have the answer at my fingertips. If the noble Lord will allow me to write to him, I shall certainly do so.

Public Library System
5.56 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, when I put my name down in the ballot for this debate and began to prepare for it in the certain knowledge that my name would come up, I realised that there was an omission in my entry
1306
in Dod's Parliamentary Companion and Who's Who. It states rather baldly that I was educated at Tottenham Central School and left there when I was 15. It should have read, "Educated at Tottenham Central School and Tottenham Municipal Libraries" for, like millions of others who had to leave school too soon, I continued to learn in the public libraries and I am still learning. I owe our library system a debt that I can never repay.
Tottenham ran a marvellous library system in the 1930s when I was a boy. It was a poor borough—poor in terms of money but rich in spirit. Our town councillors understood the value of knowledge. There was the central library, numerous branches, a mobile library, a hospital service and a range of cultural and educational activities. In successive winters as a lad I attended a series of lectures on classical music appreciation—a foreign country to me then—another series on the English poets and one on the Greek philosophers which was even more foreign. Wonderful! It was like a succession of doors opening in my mind on great vistas of understanding.
The most important aspect was the books. Row upon row of books by the living and the dead smiled silently down upon you waiting to offer up their treasures. There were books upon almost every subject under the sun—novels, reference works, art books and non-fiction from architecture through acupuncture to zoo and Zionism.
I remember still my first ever visit to our central library. I had the feeling that I was entering a temple where the librarians were like acolytes, speaking in hushed voices in a silence that added to my sense of awe and respect. I did not have two ha'pennies to rub together, yet all this, the books, the buildings, the staff were there to serve me and people like me. I began to plunder those shelves immediately, starting as I remember with Stanley Weyman's adventure yarns, working my way through Stevenson to Tolstoy and taking in on the way such esoteric works as The Moral Discourses of Epictetus—though I cannot claim that any of the morality rubbed off on me.
Your Lordships might take some gratification from the knowledge that our magnificent public library system, which is the envy of so many other countries and which we take so much for granted, was born here in the Palace of Westminster. It was William Ewart (after whose father Gladstone was named) who in 1850 pushed through in another place the laws which allowed some local authorities to establish free public libraries. It was an ancestor of our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who took up the banner and extended the legislation, and we owe an enormous debt to Andrew Carnegie who in his later years—perhaps fired by a guilty conscience or by memories of his own poverty-stricken childhood—set out on a personal mission to provide library buildings all over the world at huge cost.
We take this inheritance so much for granted that we are in severe danger of overlooking the threat to the system presented by today's public expenditure restraints, and certainly those over the past 20 years. The sad and brutal fact is that our wonderful public library system, though still one of the best in the

1307
world, is in a state of persistent decline. That must cause alarm to all of us. It has happened at the worst possible time—a time when we are deeply concerned about fostering good reading habits among the young, about literacy and about the need to provide access not only to literary culture but to all kinds of information resources.
The total cost of the public library system represents about 1.5 per cent. of local authority expenditure. It amounts to about 23p per head of the population per week or about the cost of half of one daily newspaper. That covers not only the books and other materials which libraries stock but also the cost of the buildings and of the staff. It is a fantastic bargain and the public recognises that.
When financial constraints lead a local authority to try to close down a library, the public rises up in protest. For example, recently the authority concerned decided to close the famous Fulham Reference Library. Obituaries about the library were already being written in the local press but the local people rose up in tremendous anger. They compiled a petition of more than 7,000 signatures and the decision was reversed. That has also happened in several other places.
When surveys are undertaken about which public services are most appreciated, the public library system always comes out top or near the top. It is reckoned that about one-third of the population makes regular use of their public library. That makes it probably the most used public service in the country and is clear proof of its value. The number of borrowings in 1991 was 568 million. That equals 10 borrowings per person—every man, woman, child and babe in arms in the country. That means that regular users of the system are also big users of the system, borrowing about 30 books a year, which is a gigantic figure.
There are some people—including some who shamelessly defile the name of Adam Smith by adopting it for their own narrow political motives—who say that a free public library system may have been important in the 19th century but is not needed today. That is absolute rubbish. Of course we should all buy books as well as borrow them. All research indicates—surprise, surprise—that the people who borrow books also buy them. But we would all have to be a great deal richer if we were to buy every book we wanted to read. It makes practical sense therefore to create pools of books in what are called libraries which we can all use.
I am happy to acknowledge that most Ministers for the Arts —who have responsibility for the public library system at least in England—have firmly acknowledged their commitment to a free public library service. That is about all that they have acknowledged, but I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. But I have to say that the threats to this service during the past 10 or 20 years have been severe. For example, if public libraries are to be fully utilised they need to be open for longer than normal office hours. Just taking the figures for England and Wales, the number of libraries open for more than 60 hours
1308
a week has fallen from 229 in 1974–75 to only 18 in the present year. They are open at inconvenient hours from the point of view of the public.
The professional librarians who run the system—and we should give credit to them because they are marvellous people—naturally try to ensure that that restriction in hours is done in a way which allows people to visit their libraries outside working hours. But that is not always possible and the decline in the number of branches open for as long as they used to be is serious.
There have also been a significant number of closures of branches. I admit of course that branches need to be closed and moved in accordance with movements of population. There is nothing wrong with that. But what we have seen recently is the closing of branches simply in order to save money because of severe financial constraints.
Finally, we have many cases where the book fund —I suppose that we should now call it the materials fund because it is used to buy not only books but cassettes, videos and other materials that libraries supply—has been severely cut. The consequence is that libraries are not able to afford as much new material as in the past, nor is their scope as wide.
Although public libraries are the direct responsibility of local authorities, there is strong legal supervision from the centre. Under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 the Minister for the Arts in England and the Secretary of State for Wales have a duty, not just a power, to,
"superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales".
The Act requires local authorities to provide a "comprehensive and efficient service" and it gives the Minister full powers to ensure that they do so. But have those powers been used? The answer is no. Successive Ministers for the Arts have rushed to exercise their duties in this respect with all the speed and enthusiasm of a school of arthritic tortoises. Their indifference in this area is matched only by their indolence.
The Library Association, which is the professional body for librarians and other information specialists, with 25,000 members throughout the UK, has constantly pressed successive Ministers to exercise real supervision over the system and to intervene when local authorities are not carrying out their duties. It has had a pretty dusty answer from most Ministers. I must admit that the present Minister, Mr. Renton, used his powers to demand an explanation from Derbyshire County Council when last year it closed 11 branches. The council reacted by appointing its own tribunal to investigate whether it was carrying out its legal duties. The report of the tribunal was presented just before Christmas. The verdict was guilty. I am glad to say that the Minister has intervened again and asked Derbyshire County Council to put the matter right.
I must say in parenthesis that the letter which the Minister sent, and which was quoted in the press statement issued by the Minister for the Arts, was written in such jargon that I wonder that Derbyshire county councillors could understand it. I urge the

1309
Minister to issue to his staff, and in particular to his publicity staff, a copy of Sir Ernest Gowers' Plain Words so that they learn how to write clear, precise and intelligible statements.
The action by Derbyshire County Council in closing 11 branches is only one of many recent examples. Three libraries were closed in Greenwich. In Hackney three branch and two reference libraries were closed. Two libraries were closed in Manchester. In Kirklees two branch libraries and one mobile library were closed. Hammersmith is proposing to "restructure" its services—an ominous word—and there is even talk of privatisation. What are we coming to? How on earth can we privatise a public library without betraying all that it stands for?
Let us consider another threat—these cuts in book funds. Derbyshire has made a 50 per cent. cut in the money available for books and materials; Somerset has made a 20 per cent. cut; Warwickshire a 20 per cent. cut; Islington a 10 per cent. cut; and Liverpool a cut of £100,000. In Camden no new books are to be bought after September 1991. If that is not evidence of the pressure that is being put on our library system and the threat to this great institution I do not know what is. During the past 10 years in particular, but also during the past 20 years in truth, there has been a steady decline in the scope and quality of our libraries. It has all been done in the name of efficiency and cost-effectiveness and the system has been put at risk.
Not only public libraries are affected; school libraries are facing severe difficulties because of cuts. Good school libraries depend not only on having a good individual library within each school but on providing a common school library service. That used to be the practice of most education authorities. But with the so-called devolution of management and budgeting of schools to head teachers and governors, those common services are under serious threat. The school library services are often provided on an agency basis by the public library service. That will not survive in certain areas because some schools simply will not co-operate.
There are problems elsewhere in the library world. Something which worries me out of my wits is that the university libraries, including some of the most prestigious, are selling off some of their treasures to finance current consumption. They have no right to do that. Those treasures do not belong to them. They belong to the country, to our tradition and to our history. It is a scandal that in order to make ends meet universities should even consider selling off those treasures. That has happened recently with Manchester's John Rylands library and at the Edinburgh University library. I ask the Minister to intervene to stop that.
In the days before the coming general election we shall hear a great deal about the quality of life. I believe that our public libraries have contributed more to the quality of life than anything else in our national life except perhaps the BBC. Both are public services and to some extent they cannot be judged by ordinary commercial standards. Of course they must be efficient. They must make the best use of limited
1310
resources. But they should not be expected to show a profit or cut services to provide some local authorities or the Government with a budget victory. They should not become victims of economic dogma.
In essence, I am talking about books—probably the most important invention and development in the entire history of mankind. Where should we be without books? They are our friends, companions, guides, teachers and entertainers. Is it not true that you can measure the degree of freedom in a country by its attitude to books? Where they burn books or ban them you have dictatorship. Dictators are afraid of books because they carry ideas and ideas threaten dictatorships. When you kill a book you are killing reason.
Books have changed the world. Harriet Beecher Stowe's book Uncle Tom's Cabin sold in the shops for 50 cents but it changed a generation's attitude towards slavery. Tom Paine's The Rights of Man ushered in a new era of democratic thought. Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto became one of the most influential books ever produced. Perhaps the most influential book of all is the Bible. How do you put a value on those and other books? In the modern commercial jargon which is increasingly creeping into local government and local services, how do you measure the cost-effectiveness of books?
The answer is that you cannot any more than you can measure the cost-effectiveness of a Mozart concerto, a Beethoven symphony or a Shakespeare sonnet. Nor can you put into a balance sheet or a local authority budget the true value of our public libraries. It is inestimable. That is why we must reverse those cuts and stand on guard to protect the public library system. The public library system is not ours. It was created by our forefathers and it is our duty to hand it on in good condition to our children. It has taken over 100 years to build and it can be destroyed in a decade if we are not careful. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, first, I apologise for the fact that if the debate takes the full two-and-a-half hours allocated to it, I may have to leave because of an appointment from which I cannot extricate myself.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Willis, I shall concentrate on two aspects: first, the general evidence of decline in the public library system to which he drew attention; and, secondly, in a little more detail, the problem as regards disposal. I am not quite as anxious about the sale of expensive treasures as I am about careless chucking out of the basic standard equipment of libraries of which there is some evidence.
I begin with the evidence of decline. In an article by Mr. George Cunningham, the chief executive of the Library Association, in a recent number of the Bookseller there are two very useful diagrams or tables. One indicates—and this was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Willis—that the number of libraries open for more than 60 hours per week has declined from 229 to 18 over a period of 18 years. That is an extremely steep decline. However, 60 hours is quite a lot. Like many of your Lordships I am a happy,

1311
continuous and grossly self-indulgent user of the London Library. That is open for 50 hours per week and I do not believe that it has ever been open for longer. It is open from 9.30 to 5.30 on six days per week, and is open for two extra hours on Thursdays. Therefore, I suspect that the picture may not be quite so bad. Nevertheless, that is not to deny the general tendency to which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred. It is quite obvious that, brutally speaking, the public library system is starved of resources, as are many other valuable and important services.
The other connected phenomenon to which the noble Lord also drew attention is the decline in use from 650 million withdrawals five years ago to 570 million withdrawals in the latest recorded year. That is a rather significant fact in its correlation with the diminution of services testified to by that reduction in the number of libraries open for more than 60 hours. There are many other indications; namely, the closures of which the noble Lord spoke, and so on. There is a connection between those two factors, but although the decline in resources is related to the diminution of use, there seem to me to be two long-term factors which should also be taken into account—large tides which are to some extent running against the public library as a continuing institution.
The first such factor has been with us for a long time; that is, the paperback revolution. That certainly transformed book buying practices. It made the idea of buying books a reality to an enormously large constituency. When paperback books first hit the market in England with the original five Penguins—Ariel by André Maurois and one or two others—they were 6d each. In the light of the subsequent increase in the RPI, they would now be 75p or 15 shillings. In fact, you are lucky to get away with £2.99, and £3.99 or £4.99 are much more common prices for fairly mass market paperback books. Nevertheless, it remains true that they are in the order of one-third or less of the price of a hardback book. Many more people own a substantial number of books than used to be the case.
I must take a small literary excursion. It would not be proper in a debate of this nature if there were not one. Readers of Hardy and, in particular, Far From the Madding Crowd will remember the arrangement in the wagon or caravan of that admirable figure Gabriel Oak, the shepherd. He owned about eight books—the Bible, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and something called Walkingame's Arithmetic, which was an 18th century arithmetic text. That is not an unrealistic picture. Gabriel Oak was a skilled man as a shepherd. In some ways he was ambitious, and nowadays we would say that he was an upwardly mobile man. I do not for a moment doubt the essential correctness of Hardy's view that such a man, even as a reader, would have an extremely small number of books.
The large number of people who now graduate from universities tend to have quite a lot of books even if they are rather tattered and, because of paper decay, are rather gingery around the edges. It is a good tide if some of the reading needs of the citizens are met by that ready and inexpensive availability of books.
1312
The other tendency is not to my mind—and perhaps that is because of senility—in any way as attractive. I refer to the overwhelming of text by sound and image. I suppose we must put up with that in the community as a whole. What depresses me is the invasion of public libraries by large illustrated books not properly stacked on the shelves but stood sideways so that the glamorous shiny outer cover of people surfing on Bondi beach or whatever it might be, is clearly visible to the users of the library. In the same way libraries set out stocks of video cassettes and items of that nature which their users can borrow. I view all that with some anxiety. My general picture of what is happening is that material of even lower quality than much of what is borrowed from libraries in the traditional style is being circulated.
Early last week I was in a library in a small town in the South of England where much of my own education went on. I was astounded how it had changed. It had originally been a corn exchange, but such are the historic mutations up with which we have to put. It was a handsome dignified George Eliot type of building, even if it was in Hampshire. It used to be filled with cases and one navigated around the cases and found the books. Now it is open-plan and everything is in bright and brilliant colours. It is an effort to draw people in but I wonder whether it is well advised.
Confronting the problem of the shortage of resources, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that there needed to be more finance and the free library system should be continued. But we should envisage the possibility of dividing the services of the public library system into two parts—that is, an educational part which will be provided free and a recreational part which will not. There is a mass of passive escapist reading of low-grade material by such authors as Wilbur Smith. I for one have no wish to prevent people reading it or even supplying it to them on easy terms. The idea of their making some small payment —for instance, 10 p for each withdrawal—for those works, with suitable fines for holding the books too long, seems to be entirely reasonable. It would probably generate around £40 million a year which would do a great deal for the restoration, for example, of book purchase.
I am partly driven to that conclusion by a deep consciousness that the more rhetorical, sentimental and emotional feeling one has about public libraries —I share that with the noble Lord, Lord Willis—is in my case a little choosy, perhaps snobbish. It goes towards the books that are genuinely of an educational character and not towards Victoria Holt. I do not know how the line should be drawn. All drawing of lines is relatively arbitrary. I suggest quite simply fiction published in the 20th Century and supplementary things like purely joke books—volumes of Viz and so forth—always supposing public libraries stock them.
At any rate, we have allowed public libraries to be financed purely out of public funds when to a large extent they do not foster the kind of thing that Andrew Carnegie, for example, had in mind, which was self-improvement. They foster what I suggest is

1313
anything but innocuous. Impassive and innocuous fantasy satisfaction should not be provided on the back of the serious provision of educational material —in the broadest sense of "educational".
I have spoken for a long time and I must close fairly rapidly with a few words on the issue of disposal. There is an interesting little book by a man called W.J. West who has hastened round secondhand shops and identified a large number of books that libraries have thrown out. They are not Audubon prints and so on out of which a university could make a fortune, but humble, humdrum books—histories of Rome and the like—which would be part of the basic educational stock of a public library. He quotes one public librarian as saying, "I am in business here and want the stock to turn over".
That is not a good idea. It is not part of the educational conception of a public library; it is part of the conception of a recreational library. In a recreational library, the stuff loses its currency fairly quickly. The favoured passive satisfying authors go out of fashion and new ones come in. Therefore disposal is something at which one needs to look closely.
I am slightly less worried by the managerial librarian who wants the stock to turn over quickly and condemns the book that has not been borrowed x number of times a year, than by the politically correct lady somewhere who filleted the shelves of her library of material she felt to be politically incorrect. That is a kind of ideological prudery comparable to that which kept out James Joyce's Ulysses, but now rather more humble volumes like Little Black Sambo are consigned to oblivion.
I do not know how that is to be controlled except by ventilating the fact that it is happening and by people vociferously complaining about it. I am suspicious of any attempt to restore the resources of public libraries through local government. The local government authorities which have most cut their public library resources are the ones which, on ideological grounds, refuse earmarked library money because they do not have money for something else that they want more. I do not understand that there is any direct way in which the Minister can cope with the problem except directly and not by some indirect presentation of money.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He is a great librarian. What does the noble Lord consider should be done about the practice of turning over stock when in that stock are often rare books which cannot be replaced? The books are sent around the countryside when they should be preserved and owned by the library concerned, whether it is a university or public library. Is there not a law which can be brought to bear on that kind of disposal?
Lord Quinton: My Lords, here I turn into the managerial person. I believe that the books should be kept in libraries where the arrangements are such that they can be consulted. Sometimes a library is totally incongruous with some of its holdings. They are not
1314
equipped to allow people to see the holdings; they have them locked up with complicated arrangements whereby perhaps somebody in a supervised way can be allowed to see them.
I suspect a lot of the items are in a way dead, although they are not of the highest value in the library. I do not believe there is a general answer. I shall make one point on the matter of disposal before I sit down. The acquisition of a book by a library is like marriage; a certain amount of initial expenditure is involved in bringing it off but that pales into insignificance in comparison to the haemorrhage of money that occurs after the marriage has taken place —or after the book is installed in the library. Much of it is once and for all—the bibliographic entry; but much is concerned with the storage and maintenance conditions for it.
With 65,000 titles being published each year, the idea that libraries should have any large part of it is difficult to square with any kind of rational management. The fountain of new material is so great that something must be brought out or, absurdly, vast areas will be covered or undermined by library basements. The disposal issue is a real one. One cannot say that the disposal is frivolous and irresponsible; much of it is inevitable because of the congestion and the expense to which it leads in the publishing industry.
6.29 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I feel distinctly embarrassed in intervening in this debate at all, particularly after two such eloquent speeches by my noble friend Lord Willis and the noble Lord, Lord Quinton.
I looked with interest at the entry on the Order Paper and the subject chosen by my noble friend Lord Willis. I felt glad that someone intended to raise the issue. I thought that I might intervene modestly for a few minutes towards the tail end of a long list of distinguished speakers in your Lordships' House. Quite frankly, I am shocked at the small number of those taking part in what is an important debate. It was not until the day before yesterday that I went into the Whips' Office to look at the list of names. I was astonished.
My own contribution, to which I shall come in a moment, was intended to raise a small but important issue in what I had hoped would be an outstanding debate, which is what it should be. The debate was opened in an admirable way by my noble friend and most interestingly continued by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton.
However, I must make my intervention in due course, on a particular aspect which will not surprise noble Lords when I come to it. I have always been interested in books. I grew up in a household which had an ample supply of them. After taking an Oxford degree and not knowing what to do, for some time I was a temporary and unpaid reader's adviser in the New York Public Library on 42nd Street. One could not find a more prestigious and exciting library anywhere in the world. It not only had priceless

1315
volumes on the upper floors in the music and drama libraries, but there were also the collections of the Astor, Tilden and Lennox Foundations.
We were also the administrative centre for the circulating libraries of Manhattan and the Bronx. Working in that library, I learnt more about New York than most New Yorkers themselves knew about their own city. It was a wonderful experience. Later on I was at the Library of Congress, not working but just looking around. I was bred with the highest quality of public libraries!
I must not pursue all that. This afternoon I hope to put a few questions and suggestions to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, who will take part later in the debate, concerning the position in the Principality of Wales to which most noble Lords are aware I am dedicated. Most of the speeches in the debate today will be dedicated to the problems besetting public libraries in England and the troubles that their staffs are having to face. That has been vividly described by my noble friend Lord Willis. It is natural that that should be so because in recent times the greatest difficulties have been experienced, particularly in areas such as Derbyshire, which has been specially mentioned. Some of the difficulties have been very serious indeed.
The 1964 Act, which provides the main statutory basis for our public library service, covers Wales as well as England although with some significant differences. Over the past decade or so Wales has not experienced the dramatic closures and diminution of services and hours of opening and so forth, which have been described by my noble friend Lord Willis. My inquiries in the immediate past indicate that although we do not feel disposed to have a campaign to save our libraries, which I believe is now being organised, nevertheless there are areas of disquiet. The responses to my inquiries refer to slow erosion rather than dramatic closures and to lower basic standards. There is nothing exciting, but there are fewer professional posts and a decline in other posts. There is some decline in book stocks and less is spent per head of population and so forth.
There appear to be two main areas of anxiety. The first is urgent: it is to ensure that we have a highly dynamic and active service in our library system in Wales which will combine modern and up-to-date information services with the traditional cultural and recreational uses of public libraries, as discussed in the two preceding speeches. In Wales we have our own excellent National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. Close by we have what used to be the College of Librarianship which is now restructured and integrated with the University of Wales as the Department of Information and Library Studies.
We now need to develop new services in partnership with the Welsh development agencies, possibly in some areas with the private sector, to service some of the small industries and businesses, particularly in rural Wales, where we need up-to-date information technology. I understand that progress on these lines has already been attempted particularly in East Anglia, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. We need something similar in the Principality. The
1316
public library service is also an information service. In Wales we now link library and information activity, which is a sensible development and should be encouraged.
If the East Anglian experience is as successful as I have been led to suppose it to be, it could be valuable for us. We must overcome the daunting employment problems which have arisen in rural Wales in the past year or two and for which it is very difficult to find adequate solutions. We want this dynamic and active approach and that requires the requisite resources.
That is one area in which one is anxious that on the Welsh scene we should be able not only to maintain the popular public library service but to combine and develop it in a way which is appropriate to modern practice. However, the major preoccupation among the staff and those responsible for the administration of the public libraries, is what is going to happen in the Principality under local government reorganisation. At the present time the pattern in Wales is that for the most part we have county libraries, with the Secretary of State for Wales, as my noble friend Lord Willis mentioned, holding particular responsibility for the public library service in the Principality.
There are exceptions. There are five district areas which, with the specific consent of the Secretary of State for Wales, which is statutorily required, have obtained their own individual administration. I refer to Llanelli, Merthyr Tydfil, Cynon Valley, the Rhondda and, more recently, Newport. Our Secretary of State has to undertake a decennial review of this and other aspects of the library service. He also has a statutory duty to superintend and promote the library service in the Principality.
The whole pattern may completely change if we have certain Government-proposed local government reorganisation which may mean that we shall have a number of separate units which could be much smaller than the existing counties. Who will advise the Secretary of State as to the most desirable pattern of public library provision in those circumstances? Will that advice be adequate?
As I understand it, at present there is no power of inspection by the Welsh Office to evaluate in detail the strengths and weaknesses of the individual county library services. There is a body, appointed and serviced by the Welsh Office, called the Libraries and Information Service Council—LICS for short—which has been enjoined to prepare a Libraries and Information Plan (LIP)—I use capital letters. There is also in Wales a branch of the professional Library Association with approximately 1,000 members, about one-third of whom are from the public library service, the others being mostly from university or school libraries. How effective will the advice be on which the Secretary of State for Wales, of whatever persuasion, can rely, which ever pattern of local government is to be promoted in Wales?
There is some monitoring of the five district council libraries to which I have referred, but there seems to be no top grade professional inspection on which a major reorganisation might be based. What used to be a strong professional advisory team at the Department of Education and Science in England has, I

1317
understand, been whittled down to one person. In Wales reliance appears to rest on the part-time services of the recently retired in-house librarian at the Welsh Office—someone certainly of great experience but perhaps not best placed to stimulate a Secretary of State who has much else on his mind.
I make this brief intervention because we have a different system in Wales and I am anxious that proper regard should be paid to the values and the potential of the public library service in the Principality.
I look forward to hearing any comments which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, may make from his considerable knowledge of the library organisation in Wales. I hope that he will indicate what his thoughts may be on the situation which I have described. So far as concerns the noble Viscount on the Government Front Bench, I shall excuse him because I did not give him notice that I was going to raise Welsh matters. I doubt whether he has an instant knowledge of the library situation in the Principality. However, if he cares to visit us at some time, we shall be very happy to educate him.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I have in the capacious bag which I lug about your Lordships' House at any given time, at least three books, sometimes more. Today—I looked before I came in to your Lordships' House—there is an American thriller by Mr. William G. Tapply, there is the autobiography of my noble friend the Leader of my party, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and there is a specialist book on "Preaching in Context".
I suppose I can start to draw lines, which the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, suggested that we might, between educational and recreational books from the ones that I read day in and day out. He will know far better than I how very difficult it is to draw distinctions of that kind.
The autobiography of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead is no doubt a highly educational work, but I am reading it purely for entertainment. If one sinks to the lower end of the range, to those books which we sometimes are unkind about because they are written for a mass romantically-minded market, I wonder where one would put the novels of Georgette Heyer, which although undoubtedly written for that market and extremely popular as a result, are in fact intensively researched and extremely accurate about the periods with which they deal. That is an interesting aspect raised by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, who made an extremely stimulating speech, which I shall certainly read in great detail.
The books that I read differ widely in price and differ widely in the use to which I put them. The ones that I have at the moment are all good books and they are all provided by the free library service of this country—one of them brought down by Express Bookworm, all the way from Kirklees Library I see, looking inside.
I speak as a compulsive reader with an omnivorous appetite; one who, when I was at school and they tried
1318
to find something for which I could take responsibility, was made a librarian. When the Army could not find anything better for me to do than make me an education sergeant, I looked after the local unit library. Since then I have never bought a book until I have read it and know that I want to read it again and keep it. (However, I do assure the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who is keen that we should all buy books, that when I find treasures of books I give them as presents to my friends).
I am therefore a grateful and devoted fan of our library system. I have recently, in addition to using the well conducted facilities of your Lordships' House—and like the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, the London Library, usually when I need some kind of specialist book—I have had occasion to use three local libraries: Richmond, Westminster and Lambeth, all of which have highly courteous and devoted staff. Two of them are highly efficient and the third has been sent by an inefficient council into a descending spiral of poor resources and inefficiency in organisation out of which I do not know how it is ever going to climb.
Nevertheless, all these libraries should be supported and it is the least good of those libraries which is the one that most needs support because it has more people out of work using it and it has more disadvantaged people in the borough.
What are the threats to these libraries? Mainly it is money. The extraordinary system of local government finance which has emerged from the decisions, if one can call them that, of this Government over the past 13 years forces even the best councils to economise on book buying and to flinch from the buying of expensive books, which are sometimes the ones that they should most have on their shelves.
Then there is the coming threat of compulsory competitive tendering. There may be some areas in the library system where compulsory competitive tendering is beneficial. However, it is quite clear that there are other areas where it is not and one of those is the acquisition of stock. That should be a matter for the combined wisdom of those who know the area, the people and their needs. Noble Lords who are of my age and sex will remember the unit libraries in the Army which had, wherever one went, exactly the same —I think it was 169 volumes if my memory serves me right. All of us in our generation are, as a result, exceptionally well read in The Good Companions. There was no hope that if one was posted one would find a different selection. One started The Good Companions all over again. One longed for the quirks and quiddities of individual selection.
If you cannot hand over selection to outside mechanical providers, nor can you do simple sums about choice. Twelve copies of the latest Jeffrey Archer novel are not a substitute for one copy of the autobiography of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, selling at £20, even if the 12 are taken out more often than the autobiography.
That is the second threat; namely, that of compulsory competitive tendering. I believe that the third threat is the possible abolition of the net book agreement. The seemingly rational idea of doing away with resale price maintenance in this field will have the

1319
effect of making cheap books cheaper and the more expensive books much more expensive. Moreover, it will probably price many books out of publication altogether; in other words, it will price out of publication a large proportion of really valuable books.
In the previous debate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in his maiden speech talked about the value of ethics and of having trained experts in the matter in public life. There is not much money in publishing books on ethics. Under such a system, fewer books on ethics would be published.
There are ways out of such problems and away from such threats. I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Timothy Renton who I think is a sensitive and caring Minister; but I do not pay a tribute to the general policies of his party in the fields of competition and local government. I believe that there needs to be a major change either in the Government of this country, or in the thinking of the Government of the country, before we shall be able to arrest a decline in the libraries.
One method which is available to combat such problems is that concerning the efforts to make money from the additional services which the libraries provide. For example, Sutton, which has a reputation backed up by figures as one of the best and most efficient library authorities in the country, manages to make all its extra services pay—that is, the ones for which it is allowed to charge—and that helps to fund the more basic work of providing books, which is what really matters. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, in that respect.
One of the most important tasks is to ensure that we value the library system and thereby use it more. That would be a valuable contribution to which, perhaps I may say in shorthand, the rich can contribute. The Members of your Lordships' House who have stayed for the debate, especially those who are taking part, are obviously people who know their local library systems. However, there are many people, including, I imagine, many in this House, who do not even know where their local library is and who, if they want a book, simply buy it. That is very good for authors and publishers. I do not say much against it. However, if it turns the library into a service solely for the poor, it very soon becomes a poor service. It is important that the library system should be cherished by the literate classes of the country. And if there are any classes in the country which are not literate, we must cherish the library system in order to help make them so. I say that because, as we know, illiteracy is one of the major problems of today.
The BBC and the library system—and I put those two together as the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, did —are good examples of the institutions which I think we can genuinely say are the envy of the rest of the world. The institutions which are the envy of the world are, for some reason which is very difficult to fathom, always the most tempting prey for the barbarians within our gates. Culture and civilisation need defenders. It is for that reason that I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for instituting the
1320
debate, even though I share with the noble Baroness, Lady White, the dismay that so few of your Lordships have chosen to take part in it.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Willis for providing this opportunity to discuss the library system without, for once, concentrating on the British Library building which I regard as one of the finest and most exciting building projects of the 20th century and which others mock as the great pink whale stranded in St. Pancras.
"Public libraries are in their worst state since the system was founded about 150 years ago. Libraries are closing, reducing opening hours, trimming services and cutting jobs because of dwindling grants from local authorities".
So says the Library Association as quoted in The Times of Tuesday 18th February 1992. Who will dare say that the association is wrong? The Government may well reply that this is entirely a matter for local authorities and that they must set their priorities and apportion scarce resources as seems best to them. But there is more to it than that. Public libraries are part of a complex reticulation of services provided by local authorities. Their problems are not single; they are multiple and inter-related. Perhaps I may be permitted to give your Lordships a few examples.
Librarians are currently being plagued by the threat of the Government's favourite idea; namely, compulsory competitive tendering. That was nicely analysed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in his speech. I agree with the statements. It should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that there is little scope for CCT in public libraries; and, where there is, they have been doing it for years. Stock selection and stock management, as the noble Lord said, cannot be contracted out. That is what librarians are trained and paid for. Acquisition of stock is something that most library authorities already contract out to library supply companies. They switch between firms to get the best deals. That flexibility would be lost under the proposed system with authorities locked into contracts with suppliers of between four and six years.
Similarly, the net book agreement—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley said, is no bad thing—means that library suppliers are unable to compete on price and so CCT does not apply. As regards processing and cataloguing, what is not already contracted out could not be contracted out except at additional cost. It is the firm opinion of the Library Association that CCT for support services would have a major, deleterious effect on the organisation of public library services as most of them are integrated services with a high premium on staff flexibility. That flexibility would be imperilled by CCT, and the alternative provisions would be expensive and less effective.
The final proof that CCT is a non-starter in the public library system is provided by the fact that no one seems able to identify a market in library support services. For example, Westminster City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council have both voluntarily tried contracting out library support services,

1321
but they failed to find appropriate bidders. Similarly, Devon, Kensington and Chelsea and Suffolk have tried to contract out video supply, but no one wants to know. Compulsory competitive tendering for libraries is a deeply dead duck and should be contracted out —to the dustbin.
A second extraneous problem that librarians face comes from the local management of schools initiative. One of the most effective areas of the public library system has long been the common service for school libraries. That is now likely to be severely undermined by the LMS procedures. The result will be that
"from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath"
because the weakest, most deprived schools will lose the benefit of common services. Goodness knows, the overall level is already appallingly low. A recent survey showed that four out of five schools have fewer than 10 books per pupil. The gallant attempts that library authorities have made to supplement the often disgraceful shortcomings of school libraries are currently in peril from the new educational ideology.
Thirdly, local government reorganisation poses severe problems for the public libraries. As my noble friend Lady White has pointed out, there is acute concern in places such as Wales. My noble friend was right that monitoring and advisory services to the Secretary of State on the issue of reorganisation should be a high priority in Wales, as should the tendering of advice and the tender concern for the problems of the Welsh language in a bilingual community which is not bilingual across the whole of its area. Those are urgent problems for Wales, but there are plenty such problems elsewhere.
It seems clear to the disinterested observer that, on the whole, the large library authorities are very efficient. Leicestershire's county library service is generally thought to be one of the very best, but many library authorities could end up as a series of little district library services, with all cohesion gone and all economies of scale lost. Those are all matters that are totally beyond the control of librarians, but which have the most serious consequences for the national public library system.
Within their own authorities, librarians also have to face the most severe problems. As my noble friend Lady White pointed out, those problems are less severe in Wales where we can point to perhaps less dramatic cuts, but the process of slow erosion, as she described it, is one with which we are all too familiar.
Over the past 10 years, cuts to the library service have produced a deepening crisis. Occasionally the cuts have been dramatic, but usually in both England and Wales—I do not speak for Scotland—it has been a slow haemorrhaging of resources year upon year. As the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, pointed out, opening hours have been slashed. My noble friend Lord Willis said that the number of libraries that are open for 60 hours a week or more in England and Wales has dropped—I make no apology for repeating his figure —from 229 in 1974–75 to 18 in 1991–92. Indeed, 60
1322
hours a week is not a ridiculous figure. Many supermarkets are open for 60 hours a week, so why should a public library not be able to open for as long?
Those cuts in hours have an enormously damaging effect on the library habit, which must be acquired —we are not born with it. As has been wisely said:
"We cannot raise a literate generation, or improve reading standards, if people keep finding their libraries shut."
In the financial year 1991–92, Sheffield has cut the opening hours of its community libraries by 25 per cent. and North Tyneside has imposed an overall cut of 62 per cent., leaving all its branch libraries open for only 10 hours per week. Camden library authority has bought no new books since September 1991. The dreary list goes on and on.
Even the good and successful initiatives have been enfeebled by this long process of blood-letting. The library and information plan scheme, jointly run by the British Library and the Office of Arts and Libraries, is highly commendable. Linked with it is the public library development initiative scheme, which awards £250,000 a year to a wide variety of innovative library schemes. But only 40 per cent. of the funding for that scheme is provided by the Government, leaving 60 per cent. to be found by the librarians from other sources. Sponsors do not come easily. Andrew Carnegie is long dead. The money is simply not there.
Against that dismal background, it is hardly surprising that public library book issues have declined. Mr. John Sumsion of Loughborough University has derived some useful statistics from analysis of the public lending right, which he has done so much to implement successfully. The Government may take some comfort from the knowledge that, in issues per capita, the United Kingdom stands third in the world league at 9.9, surpassed only by Denmark at 15.2 and the Netherlands at 11.7. Britain has double the issues per capita of the USA, and six times that of France. However, United Kingdom book issues are declining sharply. In 1981–82 there were 649 million issues; in 1989–90 that had dropped to 565 million. After 1986, the issue statistics show a noticeable decline, which accelerates as we get into the 1990s.
The public lending right statistics show, however, that the decline in issue figures has affected fiction far more than children's books. It seems that children's librarians have been lobbying hard and successfully to avoid cuts to their service. The draft report of the Library and Information Services Council (England) shows that since 1982–83 the decline in issues has been 8 per cent. for adult non-fiction; 20 per cent. for adult fiction and 0 per cent. for children's books. It gives me great pleasure to note that in public libraries Mills and Boon books are in decline and that Enid Blyton rules OK. It seems that, even in the context of steadily reducing resources, librarians have successfully maintained one vital part of their educational responsibility. All praise for that is due to the librarians; no thanks can be given to the Government.
As I said earlier, the Government may well say, "This is entirely a matter for the local authorities. They must order their priorities as they think best." The Government will adopt a hands-off, arms-length, non-interventionist posture and will blandly survey

1323
the inexorable logic of the law of supply and demand. I must put it to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that the Government's responsibilities may not be shrugged off so easily. As my noble friend Lord Willis has said, Section 1 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 makes that clear, stating:
"From the commencement of this Act it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to superintend, and promote the improvement of, the public library service provided by local authorities in England and Wales, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions in relation to libraries conferred on them as library authorities by or under this Act."
I believe that the ultimate responsibility now rests with the Lord President of the Council, for England, and with the Secretary of State for Wales but that, in practice, it devolves on to the Minister for the Arts. It will be interesting to hear—if the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, can tell us—how the Government have "promoted the improvement" of the public library service and how they have ensured that each library authority provides
"a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons desiring to make use thereof",
as is required by Section 7(1) of the Act. The Library Association had some doubt last year about whether the Minister had fulfilled what the Act described as his "duty" when it considered taking him to court.
To be fair—and we on these Benches always try to be fair —the present Minister seems to be more aware of his duty in this area than perhaps some of his predecessors. My noble friend Lord Willis has reminded us that the Minister has taken action over the alarming closure of 11 libraries in Derbyshire. The county authorities there pre-empted more decisive measures by appointing an inquiry team which reported just before last Christmas. Since then, the Minister appears to be superintending the activities of the library authority in a brisk and proper fashion. However, as Derbyshire is a famous target for government intervention, I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, whether the Government have a similar intention to intervene in Warwickshire which, I believe, is a Conservative-controlled council, and which has decided to have no national daily newspapers in any branch public libraries in its area —save two. One has a trust fund of its own, and in the other the town council has agreed to pay. Surely the provision of national daily newspapers is close to the centre of any modern information service, and it is difficult to see how any library authority which deliberately decides not to provide them can be said to be giving a
"comprehensive and efficient library service".
I look forward to hearing what action the Minister proposes to take in Warwickshire.
So far as concerns the public library service in this country, we can only say, in the words of the poet John Pudney,
"Complaints is many and various",
though it must be said that the complaints come largely from the librarians and not from the readers. We should be building on achievements, expanding access to library services, buying more books, developing new branches, bringing in new readers,
1324
and creating and satisfying their thirst for knowledge and understanding. Instead of that, since 1979 more than 340 libraries in England and Wales have closed.
7.11 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am delighted that this debate is taking place. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has provided us with an opportunity to consider, and applaud, what is a popular and well-used public service.
Perhaps I may, for a moment, take your Lordships back to 1927, when the Kenyon Committee wrote:
"The public interest in libraries has greatly increased and we believe that there is now a far healthier belief in the value of knowledge and in the importance of intellectual life in all the busy centres of national activity than in any previous period of history. In such centres the public library is no longer regarded as a means of providing casual recreation of an innocent but somewhat unimportant character; it is recognised as an engine of great potentialities for national welfare and as the essential foundation for the progress in education and culture without which no people can hold its own in the struggle for existence".
What was said then applies with even greater force today. I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with that.
The public library service has come a long way since the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. There has been considerable change, improvement and development. Public libraries have become a major information resource, allowing everyone full access to books, periodicals and now other materials such as CDs and videos. Their role is to support and serve the needs of their communities for information, individual education, culture and leisure. Public libraries play a major part in maintaining and improving literacy. In pursuit of their statutory duty, public libraries provide books and non-book materials, for lending and reference to both adults and children, through service points ranging from the largest city centre libraries to small village part-time centres and mobile libraries.
There are nearly 137 million books available in UK public libraries, through 4,063 central and branch libraries and 735 mobile libraries. In addition, there are 789 small branch libraries and 18,297 outlets in homes and hospitals. That is impressive. Public libraries do much more, however, than just lend books. They provide reference and inquiry services, study facilities and a wide range of specialised services for special client groups within the community, such as schools, hospitals, prisons, the housebound, the handicapped, and many others. In 1989–90, for example, nearly 46 million inquiries for information were made in UK public libraries—nearly a million per week.
Public libraries have a leading role to play in the provision of community information. Where appropriate, extensive collections of business and commercial information, including standards, patents and specifications, and access to on-line information services are provided as part of information services to the local commerce and business community. In 1989–90, 1,024 computer terminals were available for use by or on behalf of the public. That is a rapidly expanding area through which new services can be provided. For example, we have just funded an

1325
experiment to place terminals in village shops in remote areas and thereby give access to the local public library computer network. In 1989–90, public libraries handled 8.5 million reservations for books and recordings. They are also often the first point of contact between the general public and the wide range of special, academic and national libraries.
The Government's commitment to the public library service is demonstrated clearly by the improvements we have brought about in recent years —for example, by investment—in library and information plans, and the public library development incentive scheme. Expenditure on the service remains high and that is matched by high levels of use. As noble Lords have said, the public library service is one of our most popular public services. When questions about library use were included in the 1987 general household survey, in the four weeks before interview just over a quarter of all adults had used public library services. That excluded visits just to accompany a child. Eighty-one per cent. of users, and particularly older people, had borrowed or returned books. Visitors in the younger age groups were more likely than others to have used the services associated with study, to have looked at reference books, used a photocopier or used the library as a place of study.
A different perspective of use can be gained from public lending right figures. They indicate that the number of registered authors has risen from 17,594 in February 1990 to 20,203 one year later. In 1992, 81 authors—26 more than in 1991—qualified for the £6,000 maximum payment under PLR. A further 16,783 writers over the whole range of adults' and childrens' fiction and non-fiction qualified for some form of payment. Other statistics from PLR show a marked increase in loans of junior non-fiction and in hobbies, do-it-yourself, transport and computers; and, to a lesser extent, travel and general fiction.
Not surprisingly, let me turn to the Government's record in supporting public libraries. Net expenditure (that is, expenditure after deducting income) on public libraries in England has risen by 14 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. The figures for gross expenditure (that is, before deducting income), which may be a fairer reflection of library activity, show an even higher increase in the order of 18 per cent. as a result of increasing income from library activities.
In order to assist public libraries to improve the efficiency of their services, the Minister for the Arts has commissioned three management tools. The first, a model costing system for public libraries, was published in 1987; the second, a manual on performance indicators, which was published in 1990; and the third was published at the very end of last year and deals with objectives for public libraries. We hope that those aids to good management will help library authorities and librarians with the planning and measuring of their services while promoting cost-effectiveness in the public library service.
The public library development incentive scheme was established in 1987. Its purpose is to encourage new enterprise in public libraries that will extend or improve services. The scheme is now in its second
1326
three-year term and up to £250,000 per annum is available. Since the scheme began, 37 awards totalling about £800,000 have been made. Awards, of course, cover up to 40 per cent only of project costs, with winners providing the remainder. An independent evaluation of the scheme, to be published later this year, shows that it has achieved some significant successes. In addition, many applications which could not be funded have led to projects progressing with funding from other sources.
No library can be self-sufficient in stock or expertise. Various formal and informal co-operation arrangements have therefore been developed between libraries of all kinds. To develop and strengthen this co-operation, the Government have supported, with funding, the development of library and information plans. Those are three to five-year plans, based upon public library authority areas and designed to create a framework within which library and information organisations of all types within the areas can make the best use of available resources. In geographic terms, about 50 per cent. of the UK is covered by LIPs. Collectively, and individually, the plans are a great success.
At the beginning of this year, the library regulations came into effect. They are concerned with the charging powers of library authorities and clarify the relevant section of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. They also introduce modest new charging powers, which reflect the new type of library facilities commonly provided since the introduction of the 1964 Act. Through these regulations, the Government have provided library authorities with flexibility as to the charges they wish to make and with access to some additional sources of revenue.
There are some authorities which generate as much as 9 per cent. of their expenditure through charges. This has enabled them to support a wider range of services. In saying this, I wish to remind noble Lords of an important safeguard for free access to the library service which was built into the provisions of the 1964 Act as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The Government have safeguarded the central core of the free public library service: the borrowing and consultation of books and other printed material.
In 1989–90, the latest year for which statistics are available, income increased by 23 per cent. over the previous year in real terms, and by 71 per cent. over 10 years. Broadly speaking, income from fines and fees has not changed significantly; there is an increase in income from letting, hire of materials and equipment and ticket sales. But by far the largest and most significant increases have been in such things as income from photocopies, withdrawn book sales and snack bars. These figures are very encouraging.
When the Green Paper on public library financing was published in 1988, many respondents expressed concern that public libraries did not always benefit from the income they raised. My right honourable friend the then Minister for the Arts commissioned a survey. The resulting report, which was circulated to all chief librarians in England, revealed that over 80 per cent. of those authorities investigated managed to

1327
reinvest at least some of their income in the library service. This was also encouraging, and the report has helped library managers to seek an increase in the amount made available by their authorities for reinvestment.
Other valuable work takes place through the Library and Information Services Council. To take but one example, the council is currently examining sponsorship for libraries. Through a research project guidelines are being developed on the role that sponsorship can play in the provision of library services and how to do it well. That is for both sponsors and librarians.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I wonder whether he can help me. Is it the case that the new regulations which he has been so eloquently describing vary hardly at all the powers which libraries have under the 1964 Act? If they vary them significantly, in what way do they do so?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will remember, as I do, that we were here on the night when the provision on library charges was discussed and passed. As the noble Lord knows, libraries may make certain charges if they wish. As I have said before, it does not affect the central core of the service.
To return to the council, I am pleased to tell your Lordships that it has just established a new study of services to children and young people. I understand that the Department of Education has recently announced help for school libraries. This is not the record of a government with no interest in the public library service.
Much has been made of the decline in issues over the past few years—too much, I think—quite apart from the fact that, as I have already emphasised, public libraries are about much more than issuing books. The public library service in England still issues the equivalent of 1.3 million books per day, and across the UK the figure rises to 1.6 million.
Preliminary figures from the counties for 1990–91 suggest that the decline may have bottomed out. Even in the figures for 1989–90, it is possible to identify some authorities that have bucked the trend. The rate of decline in 1989–90 was about 1.2 per cent. compared with 3.5 per cent. in each of the previous two years. Over the 10 years to 1989–90, issues per capita have fallen from 12.1 to 10.2. It is true that this represents a substantial drop of over 15 per cent. but this phenomenon has apparently been noticed in almost every other country of the world that boasts a well developed network of public libraries.
One reason for the decline in book issues may be the increasing use of other types of material by libraries. Certainly the statistics for sound and video recordings show strong upward trends in total stock, annual additions and issues per capita. The increase is 60 to 70 per cent. over the nine years to 1990.
The decline in book issues could be due to a range of factors outside the control of library services. Not least is the competition. For example, information is now readily available through CEEFAX and Oracle
1328
direct to the public. Libraries face the challenge of how to continue to attract individuals, particularly the young, who have not been brought up in a tradition of reading books. But as we have seen tonight, and as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has told us, they still use the service and it attracts them to come regularly into the libraries. We must be very pleased about that. There is competition in television, through direct broadcasting and through videos, and libraries will obviously have to face that challenge.
I recognise the widespread concern about cuts in public library services made by authorities last year, and planned for the next year. Although, as I said earlier, net expenditure on public libraries has risen substantially over the past 10 years, the Government have to set priorities and ensure the control of public spending, including that of local government. This means that some authorities, especially the high spenders, have to look critically at all the services they offer.
Standard spending assessments are set at levels to allow effectively managed and efficiently administered local authorities to maintain their spending on the range of statutory and non-statutory services. The best local authorities offer sound management of resources. Others, I am afraid, do not always do so. In 1989–90, local authorities in the United Kingdom spent £642 million on the provision of the public library service. This is not an insignificant amount.
It is, however, up to the authorities concerned how they achieve any necessary economies. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts has no powers under the 1964 Act to interfere in the day-to-day management of a library authority, which itself has the statutory duty under the same Act to provide a library service. That applies not least to opening hours. It is for library authorities to decide when to open their libraries in response to local needs. They know best what their local needs are. I have to say that 60 hours is not a magic figure. It is for the local authorities, the local library service, to decide what are those local needs.
Nevertheless, the Government are not in the least pleased to hear about inappropriate library closures or unnecessary reductions in services. Where cuts appear to strike at basic services and statutory responsibilities, my right honourable friend the Minister is prepared to step in. He has clearly demonstrated his resolve in the case of Derbyshire County Council and its closure of 11 branch libraries. He has also looked carefully at the actual and proposed cuts in the library services in several other authorities but, with this one exception, has found no clear evidence that any authority is in breach of its statutory responsibilities. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that we have not received any complaints on Warwickshire. From information known to us, it does not appear that Warwickshire is in breach of its duty under the 1964 Act.
My right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts and I appreciate the competing pressures on local authority resources; but some authorities may need to

1329
use their resources better and libraries should not bear a disproportionate share of any cuts. We must be clear on that.
There have been many improvements in the public library service since 1964. There have been many changes in the world since then and libraries have needed to adapt and change with them. They have been and, I believe, will be successful and that is demonstrated by our debate today. There are larger, better equipped branches; a wider selection of material, including sound and video recordings, and a range of books to meet the specialised needs of different sections of the community. Information services have been developed for local needs, drawing on a wide range of national and international sources. We have a library service and library professionals of which we can be proud.
Perhaps I may turn to specific points. My noble friend Lord Quinton mentioned the article in The Bookseller. He drew attention to the diagram and tables in that article. I have to tell him that he obviously read the article, as I did, but he did not study the graph as I did. If he had done so, he would have found that it was totally distorted in scale. I am afraid that the publishers need a lesson in proper mathematics as the graph totally distorted the figures. As I said, I have read the article, as did my noble friend, and it is an interesting article which we take note of. As always, I enjoyed my noble friend's speech and the interesting points he made. He always interests noble Lords when he talks on matters concerning the arts. I shall bring his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, gave us the benefit of her expertise on Wales. She showed her knowledge of the Principality. As regards this debate and the number of speakers, I must say to the noble Baroness that quality has made up for quantity. The noble Baroness mentioned the New York Public Library. She even remembered that my family name is above the door. I am quite proud of that fact. I suppose I should declare an interest at this stage as I still have a strong association with the New York Public Library.
The noble Baroness asked me about local government reorganisation. I cannot respond to many of the questions asked by the noble Baroness as that is a matter of looking into the future. However, I shall ensure that my right honourable frieŉd the Secretary of State for Wales reads what has been said tonight.
The Secretary of State for Wales has set out his proposals for unitary authorities. I cannot anticipate the work of the Local Government Commission but the Government will issue guidance to the commission about library services. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, paid an important tribute to my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts. He and I share the concerns about libraries expressed by noble Lords. However, as I said earlier, the library service is an exceptional service and one of which we can be proud.
1330
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, talked about competitive tendering. The Government published a consultation paper on compulsory competitive tendering on Tuesday 5th November. Among other things the consultation paper asked for comments on the proposals to extend competition to local authority library support services. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, it is already the case that a number of authorities have contracted out some of their public library support services and have found a ready market, not least among the library support companies. The Government consider there is a good case for requiring all local authorities with library responsibilities to expose the support work to competition.
The Government do not propose to extend CCT to the network of library service points. The period of consultation ended on 31st January of this year. The responses that have been received are being analysed, after which a decision will be made on the value of extending CCT to library support services. The only purpose of contracting out is to produce as good a service at less cost or a better service at the same price.
As we have heard tonight, there are difficulties for some library authorities as they have to adjust their priorities to take account of economic realities. In doing this, however, public libraries should seize the opportunities that the Government are creating, thereby developing new services and charging for them, taking into account the views of consumers, and attracting and retaining users. The Government wish to see libraries rise to these challenges. We must continue to give them the right opportunities. The record of this Government has shown we have done that.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I wish to make a few points before the end of the debate. I wish to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, about the possibility of dividing borrowings between education and entertainment as it were, and making some kind of charge for borrowings. I hope that never happens as it would represent the thin end of the wedge. We would also enter a dangerous area of value judgments. Who will make those judgments? I believe that the young lady who wants to read Victoria Holt novels is just as entitled to borrow such books from her local library—which should stock those books—as the man who wants to read books by Tolstoy or John Fowles. We must not make judgments about other people's reading tastes. Once one starts to do that, one enters dangerous territory. Once one starts to charge for lending books, no matter how small the charge may be when one first initiates it, it is the thin end of the wedge.
When the Minister replied to the debate, I had a feeling we were discussing different institutions. The Minister painted a marvellously rosy picture of the library service. Much of what the Minister said was true, but he must be aware—unless he and the Minister for the Arts have their heads in the sand—that there is genuine alarm among librarians. That alarm is echoed in almost every publication on this

1331
matter that one can think of. Tomorrow week a "save the libraries day" will take place. That shows how concerned librarians are. There is to be a big meeting in the Jubilee Room in another place to discuss this matter. The Minister must be aware that there is genuine alarm among librarians. He should investigate that and not be complacent about the present situation. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying that. Librarians fear they are being turned into shopkeepers. They are expected to sell this and hire that and run snack bars. That is taking a skilled profession a long way down a rather shady lane.
However, the Minister was correct to say that although there were few speakers in this debate we had quality rather than quantity in the speeches we heard tonight. I was shocked when I saw the small number of speakers who wished to speak in the debate. There is a large number of academics in this House. I should have thought that they at least would be interested in books and the reading of books. I am rather surprised that they were not represented in the debate. Having said that, I wish to thank all speakers for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Bingo Bill [H.L.]
7.38 p.m.
Report received.

Children's Homes: Care and After-Care
7.39 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the care provided for children in children's homes and with their after-care.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must first of all say how sorry I am to be asking this Question because, as noble Lords will know, the Question had been tabled by my noble friend Lord Longford. I have the deepest respect for the noble Earl and that is why I feel honoured to be standing in his place as an inadequate substitute for him.
In my view the nobility constitutes titles. However, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, it is a true description of his life and character. We do not always have to agree with the noble Earl, but I am sure that all of us would wish to pay tribute to him. He is a remarkable man and he will continue to be a remarkable man. The noble Earl has had an accident and has had an operation from which he is making a good recovery. I am sure that all noble Lords wish to send their good wishes to the noble Earl. As I have said, I recognise that I am an inadequate substitute for the noble Earl in this debate. However, I am delighted to see that there is a large number of speakers in this debate and I am delighted that such experienced noble Lords are to take part.
This week I have been studying a report that is soon to be published. It has been produced by the Co-operative Movement and it is entitled Teenagers at Risk. The report explores the attitudes of children and young people towards features of modern society
1332
which concern them. Those features also concern us. The report examines such features of modern society as violence, bullying at school, drinking and driving, the dangers of irresponsible sex, smoking hazards and solvent abuse. I am sure that we shall all find that the report makes interesting reading. I hope it will encourage the Government to be more proactive in tackling some of the problems that affect young people today.
Most children, of course, rely on their parents to give them a good start in life. In our society today an increasing number of children are brought up in homes where there is only one parent. That is a great disadvantage, although the single parent involved may be fulfilling his role as a parent as best as any human being can do. Circumstances are hard. High levels of unemployment and poverty do not help. In many cases the family is unable to fulfil the responsibilities which normally go with parenthood. For some, therefore, the state has to take on the role of parent. What a heavy and difficult responsibility that is.
Increasingly, evidence suggests that too often the state is failing the children entrusted to it. That is not a criticism of any particular group of people. It is very difficult to be a substitute parent and to provide an institution which is able to act as a substitute parent.
It is encouraging that the number of children in residential homes now totals only 13,000. I remember when it was 51,000. That is a very important step forward. I welcome that, and I played some part in bringing it about. The way in which foster parents have stepped in is extremely important. There has been important progress.
However, I do not have to remind your Lordships of the succession of reports on the quality, or lack of quality in some isolated cases, of child care. "Pindown" revealed some of the worst elements of institutional control. There have been many such reports. I shall not summarise any of them because we have often debated them. They all reveal a particular situation which existed at a certain place at a certain time and certain people who may have been responsible. None of us would say that those cases represent the generality, but nevertheless there is deep concern about the quality of child care.
So what is to be done? There is no one single answer. No one would know that better than the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who I am delighted is to speak in the debate. It is not only a question of finance and resources. There are many ways in which one can try to improve the situation. In the same way as when I was Secretary of State I appointed a Minister for the disabled, in my view and in the view of my party, there should be a Minister for children and an independent children's rights commissioner to monitor and investigate the exercise of children's rights and the way in which services are provided for children in care and for other children in need. I should like to add how much I welcome the fact that the Government have now ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child. That is something for which we are all grateful. Such a Minister and commissioner would have an important role to play. They would evaluate the role of the Social Services Inspectorate. The report of Sir

1333
William Utting was important, and I pay tribute to him and his contribution to the social services during his time in the department. I believe that the task of a Minister and a commissioner would also be to watch over the way in which local authorities carry out their responsibilities in order to monitor and ensure the effective implementation of legislation.
Another improvement is the fact that the Children Act is now on the statute book. That was also a very important step forward.
The fact that the numbers in residential care is small may add to the problems of those who are in residential care. In my view residential child care is the Cinderella of social services. Staff are often undervalued, undertrained and under stress. The children themselves, the consumers of a personal social service which can take the form of a home run by the local authority, under licence by a local voluntary organisation or by a private company, have little say in how their lives are organised. I believe that Government, local authorities and Members of Parliament in both Houses should be more willing to listen to the views of children and understand their attitudes towards the situation in which they exist. When I was a member of the Social Services Select Committee in another place considering child care I was much impressed by the quality of some of the youngsters in the National Association of Young People in Care. They did a fine job.
Many children in residential care are unhappy. The Children's Society estimates that 98,000 children run away from home every year. Over 40 per cent. of those are running away from residential care. Many are persistent absconders. A recent study revealed that one-third of young homeless people aged 16 to 19 had been in care. Two further studies showed that 50 per cent. of youngsters begging in the streets—which is something we see far too often these days—and 66 per cent. of young male prostitutes had a care background. Young men fresh from care are over-represented in our prisons and remand centres. If that is the end product of years within the care system clearly something is very wrong.
All too often young people experience residential care as a form of dumping ground. That may be a consequence of poor planning, faulty decision making and insensitivity to the individual needs of the children themselves. All too often residential care seems to be the last resort when all else has failed. All too often it is provided by inexperienced and unqualified staff in settings which are geographically remote and isolated from the children's own local community. It is often an exercise in containment, not of character development.
We have to ask ourselves why, after years of accumulated experience, official inquiries and legislation and the enduring commitment of most residential care staff—and we would all wish to pay tribute to those who carry out a very difficult task and who are not usually well paid—we have failed to develop residential services which offer children a positive
1334
experience. We know that the smaller the numbers in care the more likely it is that they are the most difficult children to cope with.
One of the reasons must be that we do not value highly enough the people—the consumers and providers—within the service. We do not consult the children on their experience within the care system. Nor do we place a high value on quality staff by insisting on appropriate training and rewarding them with appropriate salary levels. Neither is it properly recognised that the economic and social pressures resulting from the last decade of this Government have presented real planning problems to those entrusted with providing quality services.
The statutory instruments governing residential care issued by the Department of Health in July (Nos. 1505 and 1506 of 1991) have been criticised by children in care for being too vague. They talk of "adequate" standards, accommodation "suitable for the children's needs" and food in "adequate quantities" and "properly prepared". Where they are specific, little seems to have changed. Children can still be held in secure accommodation for up to 72 hours without the sanction of a court compared to the limit placed on the police of 36 hours' detention for adults without court authority.
There are many problems which have to be faced. I should like to spend a few minutes considering some solutions and how we might improve the quality of care which is provided and making suggestions to which the Minister may be able to react.
Every local authority should provide a simple guide to the rights of children in residential care. The Government are committed to patients' rights, so I am sure that they will want to look at the question of children's rights. Such a guide should state the rights of children and explain how children can complain if those rights are infringed.
In my view every local authority should appoint a children's rights officer. Most local authorities have welfare rights officers. Two of my own children are welfare rights officers and both have worked for local authorities. Every local authority should appoint local panels to assist in monitoring standards. It is most important that the community itself should understand the problems of children in care and should seek to help by providing some of that care. They need advice, help and family support. Support and encouragement should be given to groups that directly represent young people in care, such as NAYPIC, which I mentioned a moment ago.
Parents should be encouraged to become actively involved in the care process. The Children Act provides for parents to retain parental responsibility even when a court order has been made committing children to care. In many cases continuing contact between children and parents is very important. Parents may well have views about the quality of care that their child receives. I am sure that we all wish to encourage the involvement of parents in the welfare of their children. Involvement is absolutely crucial.
A deadline needs to be set by which time all staff working in residential care should be trained. There are many other proposals but time does not allow me

1335
to mention them. When I was Secretary of State, I launched the project Intermediate Treatment to avoid, where possible, the need for children to go into care. That was based on my experience with a voluntary organisation of which I was chairman. I warmly welcome the work being done by several Members of this House to promote Intermediate Treatment. I mention only the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who I am delighted to see will speak in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
It disturbs me to hear that the Government intend to phase out all financial support for Intermediate Treatment. That is very unfortunate. I hope that the Minister will say something about that matter. If she confirms that such is the case, I urge the Government to think again. I look forward to hearing the Government's policy and the Minister's answer.
I understand that the Prime Minister does not want to appoint a Minister for Children or an independent commission. I hope that we can persuade him to change his mind. If not, we may be able to take the decisions that need to be taken. I am glad to have had this opportunity to raise the matter. I have not used the same words as my noble friend Lord Longford would have used. He would have spoken from his warmth and experience much better than I have done. However, if no one else reads this discussion, I am sure that he will read everything that we have said. It has been an honour for me to open the debate. I feel sure that the remaining speeches will be of a higher quality than mine.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will not mind when I say that I regret having to follow his speech. I should very much have liked—I am sure that all noble Lords would have preferred—to have heard the noble Earl, Lord Longford, ask this Question, but he could not have found a better substitute. I hope that this debate will cheer him on in hospital. We all hope to see him back in his place very soon. He spent much time and trouble in preparing this debate and is particularly unhappy at not being here to open it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, concentrated mainly but not entirely on children in care. I shall concentrate my remarks almost entirely on children after they have left care. As the noble Lord so kindly said, I have an interest in his initiative of the IT fund and also in its continuance. I am also chairman of a group called Action on Youth Crime which brings together the statutory and voluntary services in an endeavour to keep young people out of prison.
First and foremost, therefore, I look at the issue from that point of view. It is very unnerving to find that in prison there is a disproportionate number of young people who have been in care. The noble Baroness will be glad to hear that I do not in any way wish to attack the Government. In some ways I wish to pay them a compliment. I want to stimulate them into fulfilling their obligations—indeed, the obligations of us all—under Section 24 of the Children Act. Those obligations should be fulfilled.
1336
Incidentally, in passing I should like to pay tribute to the Home Office. It recently sent round a circular which gives young people leaving care as an example of a possible project under the heading "Preventing Criminality". That is one of its key themes for 1992–93 when giving grants for innovative projects on crime and criminality. That document emerges from the programme unit of the Home Office. I give the Home Office all credit for it. It is clearly conscious of the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned that the percentage of prisoners who have been in care is disturbingly high. He did not give the percentages, which I can now do. In the prison population those who have been in care are hugely over-represented. They represent 23 per cent. of the adult population of prisoners and, I regret to say, 38 per cent. of young prisoners. That is a deplorable statistic. On the other hand, although the percentages are high, the number of young people leaving care is small enough for the Government —I should like to stress on an interdepartmental basis—to concentrate on and help effectively. In the year to 31st March 1989 just over 6,000 young people in the United Kingdom left care on reaching the age of 18. Another 5,000 or so left care at the age of 16 or 17. The total number in that year was 11,000, which is not an unmanageable figure.
That small group is extremely vulnerable. Those young people face a level of disadvantage much higher than school-leavers of their age. In 1986 one study (I can give the reference if required) found that 80 per cent. of young people leaving care were unemployed after two and a half years. That is a deplorable revelation. A more recent and as yet unpublished study found that 40 per cent. of those leaving care were unemployed after two years. That is one measure of their disadvantage. That latter study also found that one quarter of children leaving care did not have any educational qualification. That compares with 89 per cent. of school-leavers in the areas studied. Again it is a measure of their disadvantage.
What are we to do to help those young people who are clearly disadvantaged and who leave care without having any family support, which is yet another disadvantage that they suffer. I mentioned the need for the Government to co-ordinate some proactive initiative. I adopt the adjective of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. Departments should get together to tackle the problems of those leaving care and seek solutions. To my mind the departments concerned are the Home Office, housing, health, social security, education and employment. Nothing less than those departments getting together will do. They should concentrate on that special group and have power to allocate enough resources for the after-care budget. Those people need our help and that can only be given effectively by a positive interdepartmental drive. Only in that way will the social services—the main agent for putting the necessary action into place—be enabled to do so and thus fulfil all our obligations, in particular those of government and social services under Section 24 of the Children Act.
I believe that there is an officially approved representative to whom children in care can turn. I

1337
strongly support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that a children's rights commissioner, armed by statutory authority, should have powers to look after children's interests in the broad way that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, outlined. That is the best way to follow our agreement to the United Nations conventions on the rights of the child.
In addition, I should like to see a direction from central government that housing or hostels should be available for those leaving care. I heard only recently from the Stonham Housing Trust that where it has housing available for single people it is now no longer able to provide it for young people leaving care partly because of the perfectly understandable pressure by local authorities to put families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation into those single housing units, thus depriving single young people coming out of care of the very accommodation which was meant for them. It is a serious situation which only aggravates their difficulties.
I am sure that everyone in the House agrees that we shall never tackle the disadvantages of children leaving care unless they are given enough to live on. The denial of income support to young people unless they have a placement in education or training must be put right. It is tragic that one in 10 of those who claim for severe hardship have been in care. What a start to life in the big wide world. We must do better for them.
I have not touched on problems in care because they have been so well dealt with by the noble Lord who opened the debate. However, clearly the statistics that I gave earlier about education mean that young people in care must have better access to suitable education. They must have education in life skills for when they leave care. There must be some relief from the sense of isolation from the community which those young people experience when they are in residential care. Children in residential care clearly need befriending. They need to be befriended by sympathetic outsiders who cannot only give them a day out but perhaps become a substitute for the parents whom they lack.
I was amused by and sympathetic to the splendid phrase used by the Minister for Health when she said that such young persons really need street-wise grannies. I rather like that phrase. I am sure that there are large numbers of street-wise grannies who would be only too happy to put their declining years at the service of those people, to take them out or to be available to talk to them on the telephone and so on.
In conclusion, I have asked for an interdepartmental proactive initiative. I can think of no one better to lead that initiative than the present Minister for Health, Mrs. Virginia Bottomley.
I hope that the noble Baroness who will reply will agree that I have not attacked the Government. I have paid them a compliment at the beginning and end of my speech. I hope that my speech will be accepted in that spirit.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I too send my good wishes to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I should love him to hear that we miss him but we are doing our best in his absence. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for the able way he opened the debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I wish to concentrate on the after-care of children who have been in children's homes.
It may seem an obvious point to make but it is worth emphasising that children in an institution—however loving and caring those running it may be —miss not only the love of parents but also the training in daily life. The noble Lord called it "life skills". I refer to mundane items such as shopping for food, running errands, or even the responsibility for a pet such as children might have in their own family unit.
Parker and Millam put it well in the introduction to their research Organisation and Accountability for State Intervention, which was published in 1989. The report stated:
"The characteristic of parental love is that it is partisan, unconditional, does not cease, does not have cut off points, is long suffering and does not evaluate. The state cannot replicate this, few parents are indifferent to their children, but the state with its emphasis on fairness and equality cannot get too emotionally involved".
The lack of preparation for life after being in care is poignantly expressed in a poem by a young man called Peter who belongs to an in care group, part of the Who Cares project, the National Association of Young People in Care (NAYPIC). Peter writes:
"Constant years of very tight held hand and dominant guidance.
Following bewildered on the red tape lead of Borough policies.
Systematically filed, regularly tested.
Separate safely to a distant spot,
Suckling an eager breast of care,
Sympathetically cuddled, caressed, enclosed, to what end this mothering protection?
To produce a weak, unprepared inexperienced child, to face a hostile world."
Young people who have taken part in the Who Cares project have spoken of being a child until one is 18 and not being prepared for the world outside. Children come into care in widely differing circumstances. A few have been abandoned as babies. Some are in a crisis of adolescence. Many have been neglected or offended against. What they have in common is the need for the care or control normally given by a parent.
Care leavers are not a homogenous group in terms of their care histories, needs, culture and ethnic backgrounds. Care may have been valued by young people. It may have helped them. But it may also have contributed to other problems including problems of identity stemming from a separation from and a lack of knowledge of their past. That may be amplified for black young people brought up in a predominantly white care system. On leaving care between the ages of 16 and 18—paradoxically much younger than non-care young people leave home—loneliness,

1339
isolation, unemployment, poverty, homelessness, movement and drift are likely to feature significantly in many of their lives.
A number of studies have suggested that about one-third (that is, 33 per cent.) of young, homeless people aged between 16 and 19 have been in care. That represents a significant over-representation of young people from care in the homeless population because less than 0.75 per cent. of all young people have been in care. When care leavers become homeless, they are exposed to danger from ill-health, crime and prostitution. There is also disturbing evidence to show that a high proportion of beggars (50 per cent.) and, as the noble Lord said, of male prostitutes (66 per cent.) have had experience of local authority care. A number of studies have demonstrated a strong link between care and offending.
Despite all the problems, imaginative and effective projects are being developed. I shall mention three rays of hope. The first is The Children's Society. It is a national voluntary childcare organisation which runs more than 150 projects throughout England and Wales. They include ordinary housing for young people with disabilities and representation for young people in court proceedings through its guardian ad litem schemes. It has recently begun to organise a series of workshops and meetings for some of the young people leaving care in preparation for their independent living projects. In addition, it is responsible for projects which are working face to face, providing accommodation, support and advice for young people who are literally on the streets. It also undertakes projects for those who are leaving the care of local authority social services departments.
Secondly, there are a number of agencies which work with the single homeless in central London. One of those is The London Connection. It was recently awarded a grant of £29,000 by the 1990 Thames Television Telethon. It was to help to tackle the problem of homelessness facing single young people leaving care. I was chairman of that 1990 Telethon. I also worked closely with the Peabody Trust and the London Enterprise Agency which are working on a most exciting project in the Waterloo area of London. The project guarantees accommodation, training and employment in the Waterloo area. When in 1993 it is complete, it will provide the opportunity for 220 young people at any one time to break through that vicious circle of no home therefore no job; no job therefore no home. They have no money to pay the rent.
The £9 million capital project of the Peabody Trust and the London Enterprise Agency received its initial funding by way of a grant of £800,000 from the Telethon. That encouraged Her Majesty's Government to invest £3.7 million of its single homelessness initiative in the project. The Corporation of London, in addition to selling the two sites to the Peabody Trust, has pledged £1.6 million as a grant to make the project a reality. I am delighted to tell your Lordships that the land is about to be purchased and the building contract let.
I wish to pay tribute to the Children Act. It provides an opportunity to establish a genuine
1340
multi-agency partnership at local level which can ensure effective and flexible service delivery to young people in need who would otherwise be homeless. Finally, I must say that if there is to be a list for streetwise grannies, I should love to have my name added to it.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, recently children's homes have had a bad press and they are in danger of getting a worse name than they deserve. We are rightly worried about the instances of abuse and cruelty that have been uncovered. They have occurred because of the ability of perverts and cranks to find employment in some children's homes. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose absence I too regret, for giving the House the opportunity of putting into perspective the excellent work which children's homes carry out. We pay tribute to the staff whose esteem and morale has too often been unreasonably and improperly damaged. They do a sterling job in looking after the children and young people committed to their care.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the decline in the number of community and voluntary homes. At present there are some 13,000 youngsters in residential care; about one-third of the number 10 years ago. He described that as encouraging. It is encouraging only up to a point because the reasons for the decline are a mixture of good and bad. On the good side is the desire to move away from the institutional flavour of large, multi-purpose children's homes. There is a desire to keep children within the community, where possible in their own homes or in foster homes, attending their own schools and playing with their friends. That must be good, but we must recognise that it is not a cheap alternative to residential accommodation. The shift away from large multi-purpose homes to small, specialised normal homes should be welcomed in an unqualified way.
However, one of the bad reasons underlying some of that development has been the desire of some local authorities to save money. Their wish to do so is understandable. The pressures that they face as a result of the poll tax, rate capping and even the imposition of new duties to provide community care are understandable. However, the fall in numbers, the closure of homes and the decline in the number of referrals illustrate not only the desire to improve the position of the child within the community but also the desire to save money. I suspect that at present the closure of homes is occurring more precipitately than is good for the children.
I am vice-chairman of the National Children's Home which during the past six months has closed two major children's homes. We are not alone in that respect. The closure of two children's homes means the loss of between 100 and 120 places for youngsters. The costs of providing places in those homes have risen sharply in recent years. It costs a great deal more to keep a child in a good residential home than to send him to Eton. The costs have risen because not only the

1341
NCH but also local authorities, which refer children to those homes, have been insisting—and rightly insisting—on extremely high standards.
Not only are those changes difficult to finance and manage if the process of acceleration is too rapid, but one wonders what is happening to the children who are kept in the community or who are returned to their communities. There are no centralised records of what is happening to them. I suspect that it will be possible to draw conclusions from exclusions from schools and from juvenile court records unless those children are carefully and sensitively managed in their communities.
Therefore, the emphasis has become more concentrated on meeting two types of need, as has been said already: first, the care of troubled and troublesome youngsters. Most children in children's homes are not tiny tots but are mostly teenagers, and 12-plus is a typical age. As the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, so graphically pointed out, they are emotionally disturbed. They are damaged and often abused. They are aggressive and in desperate need of help. They often come into residential care in their early teens from broken homes or because they have been rejected from other placements. By the age of 11 or 12 they have become unmanageable. Receptions into NCH homes with a background of 10 breakdowns in care and foster care are by no means unusual. Those youngsters feel rejected by society and, in turn, they reject the values of society. They seek their identity in offending and in bucking the system. They need highly skilled care and, indeed, a one-to-one staffing ratio is by no means excessive for such youngsters.
On the other hand, there are the children who are profoundly handicapped—mentally, physically or both. They are often ex-long-stay hospital patients who also need one-to-one staffing ratios, which is a characteristic of most of the homes provided by the NCH. Those youngsters may be long-stay or in need of respite care. However, the need is for small specialised homes catering for three, four, five or six children and adapted for those special needs.
Therefore, as has been so well said already, the average youngster in care is much more demanding than was previously the case whether because of handicap or behaviour. That is the case at a time when resources are being squeezed out of the system and voluntary organisations are caught between the two millstones of falling funds from voluntary sources because of the recession and falling funds from local authorities because of government pressure, the growth of other demands and the desire to keep down the rates. The result is that we are trying to run our children's home system on the cheap, in particular as regards staffing.
I very much welcome the committee which has been established under the chairmanship of Lady Howe to look at salaries and conditions of employment. We must start by looking at what are the needs of the young people. That must be the starting point for all inquiries, as it is the starting point for the Children Act.
1342
We must ask what is the pattern of working hours which is necessary. At present they are geared to industrial hours. Surely we need a means of providing total cover and a response to children who may need a response at any hour of the day or night. That means working unsociable hours; and that means increasing pay and reversing the present situation. Pay systems must be introduced in which workers in residential homes are paid more, rather than less, than field workers, as is the case at present. Above all, salary levels are needed which will retain staff and give stability in a situation where stability is critical to the care of those young people. If staff are better paid it will be possible to demand a better performance.
Central to that is the question of higher qualifications and proper training. I understand that something like one quarter of employees in children's residential homes at present have professional qualifications. I hasten to say that the figure is much higher for the National Children's Home. It must be right that as a minimum the head must have a Diploma in Social Work plus a management training qualification. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and my noble friend Lord Ennals are right to say that we must set a target for increasing the number of employees with a Diploma of Social Work and a NVQ. Indeed, some homes—homes which specialise in the handling of seriously sexually abused children—will need 100 per cent. highly trained and qualified staff. Therefore, training must be a high priority.
In the NCH 4 per cent. of the staffing budget is spent on training. We have our own training centre. However, we are a target for those who do little training themselves. They take our staff who have been trained. We are spreading benefits throughout the community in that way but that is rather hard. The Government should consider a system of government grants or a grant levy system may be appropriate involving local authorities and quality organisations which carry out their own training.
If staff are to be more expensive, perhaps local authorities and voluntary organisations will be more careful as regards recruitment. How do they avoid recruiting the Frank Becks of this world who are often impressive can-do, hands-on operators? Sadly there will never be a guarantee, but the methods of interviewing and examination need to be improved. They also need to be backed up, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, by effective monitoring and effective complaints procedures.
Complaints procedures must be independent and acceptable to young people. They must be separate from the management structure. Young people and staff must have access to someone whom they trust. Again I cite the NCH as an example. We have a complaints procedure which is run by an employee of Barnardo's who is seconded to us whom we pay. He is totally independent from the management structure. However, I remind your Lordships that Leicester had a complaints procedure for seven years and that did not produce the results which one would have liked to see. Therefore, there can be no guarantee. Certainly complaints procedures must be reinforced by effective inspectorate work and by local authority intervention.

1343
One other area which I should like to address—and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, emphasised it—is education provision. That is an area in which many homes have fallen seriously short. Children in care generally have a poor record of achievement at school. In residential care in particular they have a raw deal. Many suffer not only as a result of their own deprived background, often distressing and traumatic, but also from the low expectations of staff, who regrettably are often poorly educated, and from inadequate liaison with schools.
A research project by Sonia Jackson at the end of the 1980s came to the conclusion that each child should be given a key worker whose responsibility it would be to liaise with the school and who would be an educational advocate for the child and that each home should have an education liaison officer charged with supervising the activities of the key workers. We introduced that system. I am sure that if we place more emphasis, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, on education and training, it will be the beginning of giving the children a better chance when they come out of care.
I do not wish to traverse the ground already covered so well by others. However, I should like to emphasise that in relation to after-care we need to ask what our own children and grandchildren expect when they leave home. They want somewhere to live; they want work or further education; they want and expect to receive advice and support during the transition from home to living in the community; and they want somewhere to return to when they encounter a problem. They may need somewhere to spend time in the vacations from college training, for example. We take all that for granted as parents and grandparents. But we should seek to make the same provisions for young people leaving care. It is difficult; it is probably unattainable, but that should be our target and should guide our actions—to provide the standard of care that the child would receive in a normal loving home.
We are talking about a relatively small number of youngsters but youngsters who are in desperate need. Unless we respond, they will be a threat to themselves and society. It is not simply a matter of throwing money at the problem. Resources are scarce and need to be spent effectively and with care. However, as other speakers have said, resources, premises and skilled staff must be found if we are to provide proper support in the community for those who are no longer referred for residential care, if we are to provide the capital and running costs of purpose-built or adapted homes and if we are to support young people as they take up an independent life in the community of which both they and we are a part.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for initiating this debate. It was splendid of him to take over from the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The noble Earl came to me before Christmas and told me of his plan to visit children's homes throughout the country in order to
1344
inform himself of the conditions. For that reason we feel extraordinarily sorry not to benefit from what he learned in the homes that he visited.
The answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, is clearly that Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied —and rightly so—with the care provided for children in children's homes. Otherwise, Her Majesty's Government would not have asked Sir William Utting, the then Chief Inspector of Social Services, to produce a report following the inquiry in Staffordshire. Her Majesty's Government are aware of the after-care needs of children, otherwise they would not have financed the National Leaving Care Council Advisory Service known as First Key. I shall come to that later.
In the arena of residential care for children all parties—the Civil Service and local authorities—must bear a heavy responsibility for the unfortunate events which have occurred in some local authorities over the past few years, perhaps notably in Staffordshire and Leicestershire. For at least 30 years residential work has not received the recognition it deserves. The system deserves better training and pay for field staff.
The present Government are tackling better care for children in children's homes and their after-care. However, throughout the country there are staff in residential establishments doing splendid work often unacknowledged and their praises often unsung. I shall not go into the wise recommendations made in the Utting Report. I cannot comment on the report not yet published of the committee chaired by Lady Howe looking into the pay and conditions of service of residential staff. My comments in this speech are based on my past experience as a children's officer, as a director of social services, and my present experience as a governor of two residential establishments, a vice-chairman of Barnardo's and a patron of a group of homes in the private sector.
The type of child or young person coming into the care of a local authority or voluntary organisation who has received love, affection and security in early life is more likely to be able to sustain close personal relationships. Those children are now fostered or cared for by a child minder. Older children coming before the courts can now live at home and attend intermediate treatment centres, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I believe that the noble Lord also said that the present government policy, started by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has reduced the number of child offenders in residential care by 50 per cent.
The children and young people who have not received love, affection, stability or security in their babyhood or young years, but who have been cruelly treated, sexually abused or who are emotionally deprived, often present disruptive, indeed wild, behaviour. They experience difficulty in sustaining personal relationships and are emotionally deprived. They are troubled children and troublesome children. For those children a residential establishment meets their needs provided that the staff are people of quality who have been trained and are skilled to deal with those difficult children. I say again that it cannot be underestimated how difficult those children are.

1345
What are their needs and how are they to be met? First, we need a staff structure. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murray, in that regard. If staff are to experience satisfaction in their work, achieving a measure of success, their conditions of service must meet the needs of the children and young people. That was a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Murray. For instance, my committee in Oxford gave each member of staff two days and three nights a week off work; the rest of the week they were on duty. The children knew when the staff were away and when they would return and could therefore contain their worries and anxieties.
I remember visiting a children's home and meeting a child miserably sitting in the corner. I asked whether there was anything I could do to help. She said, "No. I want Auntie Sylvia but Auntie Sylvia is coming back on Friday and I will tell her all about it then". The system of staff working to the pattern of nurses in a hospital does not do. For staff to be on duty some hours and off others means that children do not know when they will see the members of staff they want to see. When they know that on certain days a member of staff will not be there they can contain their anxieties. That is important. Perhaps I can also say, on behalf of the staff, that when they go off duty one night and are off duty for the following two days, coming back in time for breakfast on the third day, it means that they have time, say, to go to a tennis club or to be in their own homes; they are sustained and rested. Both the children and the staff must be considered.
Secondly, a child or young person needs to have a personal relationship with someone who is not on the staff of the home—I underline "personal relationship". Sadly, the local authority's social workers who place children in homes no longer visit the child or take the child out and they do not sustain a relationship with the child. That is a real loss in the child care service. In one establishment with which I am connected, the Caldecott Community, we have a psychiatrist who visits on a sessional basis to discuss with staff the handling of difficult children. We have a psychologist from the University of Kent who visits and talks to the children. They know him and love him. He is not on the staff and the children know that. A complaints procedure is, of course, valuable, but what is required is a personal relationship between the child and someone outside the home. That did not happen in Staffordshire or in Leicestershire. No children's home should be an island unto itself.
My third point concerns the homes adviser on the staff of the local authority. That post is crucial. Sadly, in some instances such advisers are themselves untrained. The adviser should be a constant visitor to the home. He or she should be known to the children and have a supportive relationship with the staff. He or she should attend the case conferences which should be held in the children's home with the child and, if possible, the parents—though often that is not possible—as well as with the staff.
My fourth point concerns training and pay. I am given to understand that Her Majesty's Government are dealing with the training of residential staff. I
1346
believe that the Council for Education and Training in Social Work is also looking into this closely. Residential staff have one of the most difficult tasks to perform and yet in training, status and pay they are rated below that of field staff. It is a cause for concern that the excellent advanced course for residential staff run by Mr. Christopher Beedell at Bristol University closed down. We inquired why that outstanding course, which enriched all those who attended it, had been closed down and were told that it was because the local authorities would not pay residential staff to go on the course.
I am perhaps going outside the terms of reference of this debate in saying that the field staff have only two years' training. That is less than any other country in Europe. I regret bitterly that they have not got a three-year training course. They are given a two-year training course, go back to the local authority and then take a post-training course. That is failing because the local authorities do not release the staff and will not pay for them to continue training.
My fifth point concerns the role of the local authority. In the management structure the council, through its social services committee and director of social services, is responsible for the work of the department. It is the duty of councillors on the social services committee to visit the residential establishments. I am not going to give examples except to say that at one children's home the councillor visits after he has played golf on a Sunday. He just drops by. That will not do.
That brings me to my sixth point which concerns the public inquiries which have been held by local authorities. I do not include the Butler-Sloss inquiry. I pay tribute to those who have conducted or who are conducting those inquiries. However, I question with diffidence the justice of the reports which, while criticising the roles of the councillors, nevertheless placed blame on the individual social workers in no uncertain terms. For instance, in the case of Staffordshire the director, now retired, and the committee placed complete confidence in the social worker responsible for the "Pindown" procedure. Indeed, he was promoted three times between 1983 and 1991. I should have thought that he had the right to think that he had the confidence of his committee and staff. However, when the report was published the blame fell far more heavily on the social workers than it did on the councillors and the local authority. Many of the staff—I do not necessarily disagree with this —have been dismissed. As regards Staffordshire, what about the chairman of the council? He is still in post and yet the people for whom he was supposed to be responsible have been dismissed. That is the management structure turned upside down. We will not recruit good social workers, and parents will not want their children to be social workers, if that kind of pillorying attitude is taken. We should look very carefully as to how we are going to deal with such situations.
That leads me to my seventh point. As I said, the requirements of the present method of public inquiries set up to deal with malpractices in residential children's homes —and perhaps as importantly,

1347
preventing the necessity for such inquiries—could be met by the setting up of a general social work council. The work of such a council would be to promote good practice, to register and to discipline and, where necessary, to strike off the register staff who do not conform to good practice.
Professor Roy Parker of Bristol University produced a valuable report two years ago which was funded by the Rowntree Trust. He recommended that there were strong grounds for consideration of a regulatory body for the social services. I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government because they gave £30,000 to an action committee, based on the National Institute for Social Work, to look into the specific proposals and carry out a feasibility study. At present there is no body charged with monitoring and enforcing professional standards in the profession and neither is there a body in the profession which deals with ethics and values in the social services. That should be done by the social workers themselves.
The doctors have the British Medical Association, the Law Society has its own regulatory body and I have lately learnt that the nurses, midwives and health visitors have their council. It is true that the teachers do not have a council, but many of them want it. I am sure that they are working towards it. As regards residential care and children's homes, all these points must he met.
I now come to after-care. My noble friend Lord Brentford makes his apologies to the Minister and to the House. He put down his name to speak in this debate, but he cannot be here. I promised that I would say what he would have said had he been here. He says, "I am very concerned about the high proportion of homeless teenagers who have been in care. Is the Minister satisfied with the preparation given by children's homes to teenagers before leaving care? On the surface, it does not appear adequate. Do we not need a committee of Parliament to review the cause and condition of the homeless young?"
I have to say—and I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken—that the real difficulty is that there are many people involved. First, there is the preparation of the children leaving children's homes. I count myself at fault. On one occasion a boy was found drunk and the police brought him to me. When he came round he said, "Well it's all your fault. You never taught me not to mix my drinks". Another boy came to me and said, "What am I to do? I have won the football pools". He had, too, but he said, "I don't know what to do with the money. How do you open a bank account?" I had not taught him how to open a bank account. There are many very basic things which we fail to teach the children in our children's homes.
From the point of view of the present situation I support what other noble Lords have said. There are several ministries involved. There is the Department of Health which is responsible for the care of the children; the Department of the Environment which is responsible for their housing; and the Department of Social Security. I support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when he says that these children are not paid enough. My noble friend Lady Brigstocke also
1348
referred to that. There is also the Department of Employment. There is a great need for all those departments to get together to work out a policy for young people—all young people—but especially for young people in care.
There is one point that I wanted to make which as yet I have not made. I should like to pay tribute to the Department of Health for financing the National Leaving Care Advisory Service called First Key. It is an organisation financed by the ministry to help local authorities to set up good schemes in their authorities for helping children who are leaving care. I pay tribute to that organisation.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government have made great strides in providing better care in this country for children, particularly under the Children Act 1989. I know that they are anxious, and willing, and want to improve conditions in children's homes and in the after-care system.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for pursuing this Question. Like other noble Lords I wish the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a swift recovery.
It is valuable to have such a debate, especially as it is not taking place in the immediate aftermath of some crisis, some scandal, that has come to the surface, or after the publication of a report on some such scandal or failure in the child care system. On those occasions we tend to concentrate on things that have gone wrong. As several noble Lords have quite rightly pointed out, things do not always go wrong. There is a large number of dedicated social workers working day and night, literally, to make sure that things go right, within the resources available to them. There are people such as those referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—outsiders who are approved "befrienders" of children in care. That is a particularly valuable service which I hope all local authorities will encourage.
The Question asks whether the Government are satisfied with the care provided in children's homes and with after-care. So far as children's homes are concerned, I hope the answer will be that the Government are never satisfied, because no Government, however vigilant, can ever be sure that proper standards are consistently maintained in all homes where children are cared for. It is never possible to be sure that unacceptable practices are not going on somewhere. Obviously there should be no room for complacency. That is not to criticise the responsible reaction of the Government to the Staffordshire child care inquiry.
In some ways it was fortunate that at the time of the inquiry into the Staffordshire situation the Children Act 1989 had been enacted, but much of it and much of the subordinate legislation had yet to come into force. Thus it was that the Children's Homes Regulations 1991 were able to be adopted to take in some of the recommendations of the "Pindown" report. The Children Act 1989 has also introduced a much improved legal framework and a much improved ethos for all those involved in the care of

1349
children. I should like to pay particular tribute to the initiatives of the National Children's Bureau in seeking to increase awareness of the principles of the Act among those responsible for children's homes.
The Government, too, have produced valuable guidance and I hope that they will indicate what machinery they have, or will have, to ensure that the policies and procedures of the modern legislation are followed consistently by local authorities in the future. Indeed, I want to broaden that question to ask the Minister to state how the Government see their role and their responsibilities in relation to children's homes. If one reads, or rereads, the debates in another place on the 3rd June last year, just after the "Pindown" report, it is clear that the Government were putting much of the blame for the failures of the past and the problems of the present on local authorities. A large part of the problem in Staffordshire was the failure of the local authority. As the noble Baroness has just said, it was a serious management failure at various levels of that authority. That was clearly stated in the "Pindown" report. But if such failures arise out of poor and weak local authority management, the need for firm direction and support from central Government becomes all the more necessary.
The calibre and training of social workers are also directly influenced by central government. Workers in homes have to work long hours in not always attractive circumstances. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that the Government must recognise, as I hope they do, that pay and conditions will always be highly relevant to the recruitment and retention of residential social workers. In the debate in another place in June last year the Minister acknowledged that too many social workers see residential care work as a stepping stone to a career elsewhere. I hope that the Government will always see it as their concern to ensure that there are enough social workers of the right quality in post in residential homes.
The "Pindown" report also showed failures of inspection. I hope that the Minister can indicate what improvements in inspection have been introduced as a result of the shortfalls demonstrated all too clearly by "Pindown". It is vital that there should be a truly independent element in inspections. It is also vital that there should be unannounced spot checks on children's homes. Any hint of a cosy relationship between the inspectors and the inspected must go. Again, the Government have an important role in supporting the powers and the morale of the SSI.
Finally, the Question asks about after-care. I do not wish to repeat what has already been so well said; but again, the "Pindown" report shows clearly that in every home, or group of homes, there must be someone responsible for looking ahead and for career development. The dismal alternative is that children leave children's homes to join the homeless and become part of the crime statistics. It is deeply depressing—if it is correct—that 40 per cent. of young people become homeless after leaving care. I agree with the model of parental care, albeit an ideal,
1350
suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, in a conventional family setting. Parental concern does not just dissolve when the children reach 16, 18 or some other artificial age; it is a continuing process.
The most depressing article that I have read for a very long time appears in the latest edition of Childright. It analyses how the severe hardship provision fails to provide an adequate safety net for many of the most vulnerable young people in society. I refer to the 16 to 17 year-olds who are without homes, jobs, family support or qualifications and often without basic self-esteem. At the end of the depressing article the authors make the point that was made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson:
"The question is not whether, in the short term, we as a society can afford to restore Income Support to 16 and 17 year-olds, but whether we, in the long term, can afford not to".
9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond from these Benches to the debate on the Unstarred Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Ennals. As he said, he has taken over the matter from my noble friend Lord Longford who is unfortunately unwell following a recent accident. I join with other noble Lords in sending him very good wishes and hoping that he will soon be restored to us. Of course, we miss his compassion and his commitment on such issues.
Children in care, and particularly in residential care, are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are only in care because their own families are unable or unwilling to care for them. The necessary care and security has to be provided somewhere else. But children in care need love and security just as much—perhaps even more—than children growing up in their own families. Too often that love and security is not provided, although I acknowledge what my noble friend Lord Murray said about the numbers of committed staff who look after children in care and provide a very good service.
Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Ennals said, many children in residential care are very unhappy. But sometimes that only surfaces when there is a nasty scandal such as the "Pindown" affair. The children subjected to that system suffered the desperate humiliation of the forfeiture of all their personal possessions; they endured isolation and the frustration and boredom of being separated from all communication and companionship. It was institutional control of the worst possible kind. It was a real attempt to make non-persons of the children entrusted to the care of those in charge of that residential home.
My noble friend Lord Ennals made reference to the statistics provided by the Children's Society to the effect that about 90,000 children run away from home each year and that about 40 per cent. of them are running away from residential homes. That must give us cause for a great deal of anxiety. Apparently many of them are persistent absconders. It has already been mentioned that about 50 per cent. of youngsters begging on the streets today have a care background

1351
as do many young males who are in prisons and remand homes. We must all be most worried about such statistics.
However, it is hardly surprising that a child subjected to the sort of "Pindown" regime, or similar, should grow to maturity with a grudge against the kind of society that allows this to happen. When young people are brought up not to value themselves very highly, it is not surprising that they drift into prostitution or petty crime. It seems fairly clear that at least parts of the present system are not working very well. Instead of setting up further inquiries, perhaps we should look at what our past experience already tells us; and, in particular, what children would tell us themselves if ever they were asked.
It so happens that some groups have made it their business to find out what children really think. Very often the care provided is by way of containment—awkward children are simply being "tidied away". Sometimes the care is provided by inexperienced and overworked staff in settings that are some way away from the children's own communities. That further emphasises the sense of isolation that the children must feel.
My noble friend Lord Ennals made reference to the statutory instruments governing residential care issued by the Department of Health in July. He criticised them as being too vague and referred to the fact that they talk about "adequate" standards; accommodation "suitable for the child's need"; and food in "adequate quantities which is properly prepared".
My noble friend said that that sounded rather vague. I agree with him. He also pointed out that children can still be held in secure accommodation for up to 72 hours without the sanction of a court, compared to the police limit of 36 hours' detention for adults without court authority.
There is a case for asking children what they want and listening to what they say. Often all they want are the things that many of us take for granted; for example, privacy, a space of their own where they can have books and pictures, some pocket money, a choice of clothes and meals, a homelike atmosphere and a sense of being cared for and bothered about.
There should be a code of practice for caring for children which accepts that children in residential care have the same rights and the same needs as other children. We should look at why the image of children's homes is so poor so that residential care is seen as a last resort. Quite clearly, that must affect the way children see themselves and their future prospects. They are in residential care and not seen as important; they simply feel that they have been dumped. Residential care ought to be a positive rather than a negative option.
We ought to look at the role of the social services inspectorate and local authorities in monitoring and inspection. That point was made by several speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston. There should be locally-based panels which look critically at homes within the area and report on children's views and worries as well as the traditional areas of inspection. Those panels might consist of a local child care
1352
solicitor, a paediatrician, a local justice of the peace, a social worker, a child psychologist and perhaps a member of a group representing young people. Such a panel should operate publicly and openly and publish its reports.
Local authorities should become more fully involved. I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, about the obligation on local authorities in this regard. They should provide a user-friendly guide to the rights of children in residential care, explaining how to proceed if those rights appear to have been infringed. I also agree that every local authority should have a children's rights officer.
Furthermore, all staff should receive proper training. I concur with the view that was expressed by both my noble friend Lord Ennals and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, that a deadline should be set by which that training should be completed. The staff must be properly remunerated because a proper system of remuneration encourages the right kind of people to come forward for training. The right sort of career prospects and career progression are also needed so that the staff recognise that the profession is regarded as worthwhile and that it enjoys a great deal of social respect, as it should.
Programmes need to be instituted so that the transition from a home to the world outside can be accomplished effectively. Information about benefits, housing, further education and training should be made available so that every encouragement is given to enable those young people to make the transition to the adult world. Again, I support what has been said in that regard by several of your Lordships. The children concerned need to have adequate financial support. From these Benches, I have repeatedly opposed the Government's policy of not providing adequate income support for 16 to 18 year-olds on the basis that there is a youth training placement for everybody who wants one. We know that that is not the case. Proper financial support must be provided. I believe that all those who have spoken have emphasised that point, and I should like to do so again.
Staff in residential homes should be vetted prior to appointment to provide a basic measure of protection. Individuals and companies applying to set up children's homes should be required to supply extensive background information before they are allowed to do so.
An improved system of residential care will need adequate resourcing, but substantial savings could be made following a thorough audit of the residential care system, including the expanding private sector, to ensure that unjustifiable profits are not made at the expense of the local authority and the children. In any event, such expenditure—whatever it is—must be worthwhile. No one likes to see youngsters sleeping rough or begging on the streets. No one would live like that if any other option appeared available. The fact that so many of those youngsters have previously been in care should cause us to look critically at the system not only of providing care for children who cannot for whatever reason obtain it in their own homes but also

1353
for ensuring that there is sufficient aftercare to make sure that those young people can take up an independent place in society as part of our community, not as outcasts.
I join other noble Lords in commending the Government on the Children Act 1989, which we supported. We on these Benches have a specific programme in this area. We have said that we should like a Minister for Children to be appointed so that these issues can be dealt with at the highest level. Other noble Lords have referred to the fact that responsibilities in this area are split between a number of departments. We should like a Minister to bring all that together and to be responsible for it.
We also believe in the appointment of an independent children's rights commissioner to monitor and investigate the exercise of children's rights and the delivery of services for children. As I have repeatedly said, we believe in consulting the children themselves. We should like to ensure that support and encouragement is available for youngsters leaving care as a first step in their achieving independence. That is the kind of framework that we should like to see. I commend it to the House and await the Minister's response with interest.
9.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I join the whole House in wishing the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a speedy recovery following his recent fall. I thank him for instigating this debate. It once again demonstrates the concern for vulnerable members of our society for which the noble Earl is so well known and respected. Thanks are due also to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for stepping into the breach and to all noble Lords for their informed and valuable contributions to the debate.
It is true that the disclosures of abuses in recent months in Staffordshire and Leicestershire have left many of us almost shell-shocked in disbelief. Our distress at those events is of course as nothing compared to the trauma suffered by the children.
We have been reminded—and it is well that that is so—that the stress also affects the staff of children's homes. In the past decade or two their world has undergone what is probably best described as a metamorphosis. There are now far fewer children in care—a smaller proportion of these are in homes—there are fewer homes and there are fewer residents in each home. Qualified social workers have tended to move on quickly to the more mainstream fieldwork. At the same time, children have tended to enter care at an older age and in circumstances where they have, as has been acknowledged by many of your Lordships, been too difficult to be coped with in the preferred family placement. Where those children are being looked after by unqualified, inexperienced staff, often not much older than themselves, there has almost inevitably been trouble, whether resulting from too little control, as in Grove Park Home, Camberwell, or too much control as in "Pindown" and Leicestershire.
Coping with children in those circumstances is an
1354
extremely demanding task. I have no hesitation in agreeing wholeheartedly with the proposition put forward by many of your Lordships that the dedicated staff of children's homes are performing an irreplaceable service and need help. But what kind of help? Training is an obvious answer, as has been said. The department's training support programme, under which £29 million will be available in 1992–93 has as a focus the training of residential child-care staff. A special aim is to secure that all officers in charge of children's homes are qualified to the level of a diploma in social work; and £2.5 million has been provisionally reserved for that special initiative in 199–93. In that respect I say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that the decision to limit qualifying training for social workers to two years was not taken solely on the grounds of cost, although the resource implication of the three-year qualification would have been considerable, but because we judged it preferable to seek a balanced programme of training improvement for all sections of the social services workforce at both vocational and professional levels.
We firmly believe that training should not end at qualification but should extend throughout a career. Our investment in post-qualifying training through the training strategy enables that to take place. While I agree that sustained care is essential and that paper qualifications, even when obtained by courses of study that include practical work, are not enough in themselves, on balance we believe that it is important that staff should be properly qualified to undertake that difficult work and that at least those in charge of homes should be expected to be qualified as a matter of course.
Staff in homes, including the officers in charge, also need support from those who have management responsibility for them. That is where the new regime of regulation and guidance under the Children Act —which came into force last year, as has been said —emphasises the need for the proper management and supervision of homes, as well as providing helpful and practical guidelines for staff. Those guidelines, for example, encourage the good practice of involving children in mundane matters such as shopping, washing and cooking referred to by my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. I agree that that is important. When I visited a home in Westminster recently the children there were encouraged to take part in the domestic tasks I have mentioned. That is obviously important to help them prepare for the day when they will have to run their own homes.
While on the subject of guidance, the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested that local authorities should provide guidance on children's rights as well as appointing more children's rights officers. Guidance on the Children Act advises that every child looked after by a local authority should be given an information pack about his or her rights and how they can complain if they have a problem. I am pleased that more children's rights officers are being appointed.
Regarding children who have no contact with their families and parents, the Children Act also requires that independent visitors be appointed. As for monitoring the implementation of the Children Act

1355
—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—the department will monitor its implementation, including the regulations on children's homes, with a view to reporting on the first nine months of the working of the Children Act to Parliament around the turn of the year. So the points reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, about vagueness may or may not be substantiated.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and others suggested that residential care staff are underpaid. He recognised, however, that the Department of Health is not the employer of staff in these homes. The local authorities are the employer. The national joint council for local authorities' administrative, professional, technical and clerical services has appointed an inquiry under the chairmanship of Lady Howe. It will examine pay and conditions of service for residential care workers and various other management issues. We expect its findings to be valuable.
On the subject of resources, I do not wish to rehearse the well-known figures, but it is a fact that expenditure on personal social services overall has increased by 59 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. In saying that, I recognise that additional responsibilities have been placed on local authorities by the Children Act, but substantial additional funding has been included in the settlements for 1991–92 and subsequent years. Not all the different new duties require additional expenditure.
In his report last year Sir William Utting said that pay and conditions of service are not the most serious matters affecting residential care. The major problem, he said, is that residential care of children is regarded as an unimportant residual activity. That is one of the problems which we have to tackle.
Regarding after-care, which was dwelt on by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and my noble friend Lady Brigstocke, as well as others, the Children Act brought improvements in the provisions governing this important area. Those responsible for homes have a clear duty to prepare all the children whom they accommodate for the time when they will leave care. There are powers to make grants towards education and training, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred, and towards accommodation expenses. Clear guidance has been issued by the department on how those responsible should undertake their after-care responsibilities. We are also grant-aiding the new national leaving care advisory service provided by the organisation First Key, to which my noble friend Lady Faithfull referred.
Nevertheless, every child leaving care is an individual with different needs and problems. Some will have been looked after by local authorities for only a brief period, others will return to a stable home environment. It is only a minority who leave care each year who for a variety of circumstances have to live independently. Nevertheless, we feel it would not have been appropriate for us to have—
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Has she any figures? My impression is that there is a high proportion of children leaving care who have no home to go back to.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I do not have the precise figures now. However, I have been informed that it is only a minority who go on to live independently. It was for that reason that it was considered inappropriate to impose any blanket duty on local authorities, irrespective of the child's individual circumstances. Similarly, if one is going to impose a duty on local authorities to give grants, that would not mean anything unless one also dictated the minimum level of the grants. What we have done is to provide local authorities with a clear, comprehensive framework within which they can tailor the financial assistance they can give to those who have left care which will be appropriate to the individual child's needs. That matter will be considered as part of the overall monitoring exercise referred to in the Children Act.
Reference was also made to the rules governing income support, particularly for those aged 16 and 17. The Government believe that in general it is better to give young people the positive options of education, employment or training instead of the negative option of reliance on benefits. Young people who are vulnerable, such as those who have been in care before their 16th birthday, are entitled to income support for up to 16 weeks after leaving school. There are also provisions under which income support can be provided at any time for any 16 or 17 year-old who is at risk of unavoidable hardship. In addition, the Government propose to introduce legislation to provide that care leavers who are living independently and continuing in full-time education will become automatically entitled to income support.
On the question of housing, the Children Act puts the responsibility on social services departments to provide accommodation for any child in need aged 16 or 17 whose welfare is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him or her with accommodation. Local housing authorities may be requested by social services departments to provide accommodation on occasion. The Housing Corporation allocated £13.8 million to schemes that will assist young people at risk in 1991–92. That compares with £4.66 million allocated to such schemes in 1990–91.
As a specific contribution to the alleviation of homelessness among young people—this matter was referred to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and others—the Department of Health last year launched its single homeless young people initiative under which £3 million is being made available over three years. Some 14 individual projects will be funded under that initiative and they will provide help of various kinds in their local areas to young people at risk of homelessness when they leave home or care. In addition, we have given a grant to Centrepoint, Soho's national development unit, to produce and publish a regional resource checklist. That information pack will be launched in the spring and is designed to stimulate and guide the development of services to prevent homelessness.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, also made reference to the new arrangements to divert young offenders from prison under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I understand that, in practice, only

1357
some 50 to 100 juveniles are remanded to penal establishments at any one time. Nevertheless, a national steering group has been set up to address issues of developing alternative arrangements within the community and within the child care system.
A number of noble Lords have referred to Sir William Utting's report entitled Children in the Public Care - A Review of Residential Child Care in which he made recommendations for action to improve standards of public care. Some of the recommendations are for central government consideration while others are for the consideration of local government and training bodies. Authorities have already been advised that the Government accept the main recommendations in the report and they have been asked to undertake the groundwork for preparation of children's services plans, the inspection of children's homes, training and management. A joint implementation group has been set up to monitor the taking forward of Sir William's recommendations.
I must also refer to the inquiry set up by the department following the Beck incident and other incidents in Leicestershire under the chairmanship of Norman Warner to consider the selection and appointment methods and criteria for staff working in children's homes. The inquiry is due to report its recommendations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by July 1992.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred to a Minister for children. In the past we have not seen a need for interdepartmental machinery on children's issues in general but there are a number of regular meetings on particular subjects. Those are at present child abuse, under-fives and juvenile delinquency. There is also the family law administration working party and a group on the world summit for children.
Now that the United Nations convention on the rights of the child has been ratified we are looking at the possibility of a forum in which progress can be reviewed interdepartmentally. Under the articles of the convention we are obliged to send a report two years after ratification to an interdepartmental monitoring committee which has been set up to examine the progress made by signatory states towards meeting the obligations imposed by the convention. Most aspects of the monitoring of the Children Act will be covered in those fora, but
1358
Ministers here would not rule out the need for further action on particular subjects to fulfil their remit on co-ordination in relation to the Act as noted in the Prime Minister's minute.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to the department's decision to phase out its financial support for the Intermediate Treatment Fund. The original agreement between the department and the Rayner Foundation to establish the Intermediate Treatment Fund in 1978 included a government commitment of three years' financial support. In fact we shall have consistently grant-aided the fund for 15 years when our current three-year grant totalling just over £1 million expires in March 1993.
During that period the fund has become increasingly successful in securing additional funds for intermediate treatment projects from non-government sources. Local authorities have increased their expenditure on intermediate treatment from some £3 million in 1978–79 to some £36 million in the period 1990–91. My honourable friend the Minister for Health met the chairman and representatives of the members and officers of the fund on 6th March last year to discuss arrangements. She offered a further meeting this autumn to review the matter in the light of the fund's progress in securing alternative sources of funding to meet its core costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about independent inspection. I confirm that the local authorities' inspection units are independent of those responsible for the operational management of children's homes.
I hope that I have succeeded in giving an update on government thinking in this area, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in particular requested. I believe that I can say with justification that, while recognising that no amount of legislation or resources can be guaranteed to remove the possibility of abuse or neglect, the Government consider that their policies and programmes in relation to children's homes, including after-care, demonstrate the high priority we give to this hitherto rather neglected area of social service provision. I hope that the various measures introduced will result in the provision of greater protection of children in homes, a very vulnerable group in our society and one deserving our closest attention.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  CAMBODIA: UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS—UK CONTRIBUTION
  CAMBODIA: UN PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS—UK CONTRIBUTION
  INDONESIA: ARMS
  INDONESIA: ARMS
  VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS
  VIETNAMESE MIGRANTS
  ASSASSINATION
  ASSASSINATION
  ALLEGED OFFENDERS: SURRENDER REQUEST
  ALLEGED OFFENDERS: SURRENDER REQUEST
  CAMBODIA AND EAST TIMOR: DEATHS
  CAMBODIA AND EAST TIMOR: DEATHS
  EAST TIMOR: DILI INCIDENT
  EAST TIMOR: DILI INCIDENT
  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY
  WESTMINSTER FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY
  COURT DUTY PSYCHIATRIST SCHEMES
  COURT DUTY PSYCHIATRIST SCHEMES
  POWYS: COUNTY ARCHIVES
  POWYS: COUNTY ARCHIVES